MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Queen's Speech (Answer to Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
	I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Greenham and Cookham Commons Bill

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the Bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the present session of Parliament the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be further considered on Wednesday 18 July.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—

Better Regulation Task Force

Paul Clark: What plans he has for the future operation of the better regulation task force.

Barbara Roche: The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for his absence today. I know that he has written to you and to the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He is currently undertaking a series of meetings abroad on climate change on behalf of the Prime Minister and is today meeting the Japanese Prime Minister.
	We are determined that regulation should be necessary and fair and should impose the minimum burden on business. The better regulation task force will continue to provide Government with high quality, independent advice on how to achieve this aim.

Paul Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for her response and welcome her and the Parliamentary Secretary to their new posts on the Front Bench and wish them all the best. I draw her attention particularly to regulations that impact on public services. She will know from visiting schools and the police service in her constituency the common and justifiable complaints about the burden of form filling, paperwork and unnecessary bureaucracy. What steps does she plan to take, and when, to reduce that burden on the teachers in our classrooms, the nurses on our wards and the bobbies on the beat?

Barbara Roche: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome; we are very pleased to be here. When we talk about regulation, we do not discuss frequently enough its impact on public services. That is why the Government have responded positively to the task force report on the effect of red tape on head teachers, for example. The public sector team in the Cabinet Office has produced real cuts in public sector paperwork and bureaucracy that will save GP hours. It will save 200 hours a year in a typical school and will save the police 187,000 hours a year. It is very important that we reduce the burden of form filling on our police, our teachers and our doctors, enabling them to deliver the service that all our constituents need.

Patrick Cormack: I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady and her ministerial colleague on their new appointments. Although nobody can accuse the Deputy Prime Minister of discourtesy to the House this afternoon, it is a pity that he did not reorganise his priorities because it is the prime duty of a senior Minister of the Crown to be in this House and respond to questions. What is the precise target for the reduction of regulations? What figure does the Minister have in mind?

Barbara Roche: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister takes very seriously the absolute duty to be accountable to the House, as do all members of the Government. The opportunity to meet the Japanese Prime Minister came up at the last moment. The Opposition and Mr. Speaker were informed and, given the importance of climate change, it was felt that the House would understand why the meeting was necessary.
	As for targets, we aim to reduce regulation where we can and to make sure that there is a proper framework for business so that it can remain competitive. Of course, a very good benchmark of that is today's announcement that inward investment into this country is at record high levels.

Anne Begg: I add my congratulations to the Ministers on their new posts.
	I am glad to hear that the task force is to continue its work. Recently, a small business in my constituency complained that it could not take on graduates and give them the necessary training because of the stifling effect of regulations. I seek an assurance that the task force will investigate that and ensure that it does not happen in future.

Barbara Roche: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Small businesses are the life-blood of this country. I was formerly the Minister responsible for the small business sector and I retain an active interest in it. Small businesses now employ a record number of people and we must give them every support. It is very important for them to be able to recruit highly skilled, highly motivated graduates, and I will certainly bring that to the attention of the task force and the unit.

Mark Oaten: Government regulations over the past five years cost businesses about £10 billion. Is the Minister in a position to say that the figure will come down in the coming five years?

Barbara Roche: I have seen many very different figures from different organisations, so I would dispute that figure. Most regulation does not add to the burden—quite a lot of it is there to ease administration. It is important to scrutinise every extra piece of legislation to ensure that it is helpful. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising some of the measures that we introduced to improve people's pay and working conditions, such as the minimum wage.

Government Policy (Co-ordination)

Hugh Bayley: What initiatives are being taken by Government offices for the regions to improve the co-ordination of Government policy.

Barbara Roche: Government offices bring together in the regions the activities and interests of many different Departments. They work with a wide range of local organisations involved in regeneration, competitiveness and social inclusion.

Hugh Bayley: York suffered major problems during the flooding last November, but a major catastrophe of water breaking through the defences was avoided because of good planning by the local authority and excellent leadership by the police of the Silver command, which brought together the local authority, the emergency services, the Army and other bodies involved in York's flood defences. I pay tribute to the role that the Deputy Prime Minister himself played, coming to York twice in those 10 days and responding within an hour at the weekend to my phone call asking for more sandbags—he arranged for 50,000 extra sandbags to be delivered.
	Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Yorkshire regional office uses York's success in averting catastrophe as a case study of what planning and the good co-ordination of Government and private agencies can achieve, and further ensure that those lessons are learned and used by others facing major disasters?

Barbara Roche: I am certainly aware of the effects that the winter floods had on York, and I absolutely agree that Government offices throughout the country have a very important role to play in coping with emergencies. Co-ordination between local authorities and the police is extremely important.
	I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he gave to the defence team. It is very important, when emergency workers are dealing with such situations on the ground, that local Members of Parliament—I know that this applies right across the House—take part and provide support. That is why we are spending a further £51 million on flood defence aid. We definitely need to see what lessons can be learned, as my hon. Friend said, to see how we react and to spread good practice through the rest of the Government offices and other agencies as well.

Andrew Lansley: I, too, welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.
	The regional context of policy is of course set by the Government's intentions in relation to regional government, and throughout the last Parliament the Government had a manifesto commitment to legislate on referendums for directly elected regional government but at no stage timetabled any such referendum or introduced any associated legislation. Is it the Government's intention to legislate for referendums on directly elected regional government in this Parliament?

Barbara Roche: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in welcoming my appointment and that of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Front Bench. That is greatly appreciated. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister answered a written question on 2 July, saying that a White Paper would be produced on this issue.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister, and I have seen that reply, but it does not even tell us whether the Government intend to repeat their commitment from the 1997 manifesto, which was to legislate for referendums on directly elected regional government. Perhaps the hon. Lady will answer that point. Further to that, the Government said in the manifesto that referendums should go ahead in regions where people supported directly elected regional government or where predominantly unitary local government was established. Does she know where the latter requirement has been met? Are there any regions, in her view, where predominantly unitary local government has been established? If not, where is she proposing to make changes in local government to make that so?

Barbara Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises genuinely interesting questions about issues that will be the subject of the White Paper. They will need to be addressed, but the purpose of having a White Paper is to ensure that issues are considered and, in due course, presented to the House for consideration.

Teenage Pregnancies

Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the recent social exclusion unit report on teenage pregnancies.

Barbara Roche: The social exclusion unit report published in June 1999 set out our plan to halve the number of teenage pregnancies and help more teenage parents into education, training and employment. Implementation is progressing well. The latest figures show a 7 per cent. fall in pregnancies among girls under 16.

Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and add my welcome to her to her new post. Can I assume from her answer that she agrees that one of the keys to breaking the cycle of poverty and disadvantage associated with teenage pregnancies is education, and that the current situation, where many young mothers get only a few hours of home tuition a week, is not satisfactory? Will she ensure that there is some joined-up government on this issue so that we have proper education and child care policies in place to keep teenage mothers in education and to allow them to move into work, which will benefit them and their children?

Barbara Roche: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a key issue. The best possible way of breaking the cycle of deprivation and helping those young women is to get them either into work or into education. We are making good progress. I do not pretend that it is an easy matter or that there is some magic solution, but there are a number of things that we can do. For example, we are testing how best to provide child care for teenage parents to help them return to education or work. We are also targeting the 48 local education authorities with the highest teenage pregnancy rates in order to enable young mothers to get back into education. Currently, 31 per cent. of teenage mothers are in education, employment or training, compared with only 16 per cent. in 1997.

Evan Harris: The Government accept that the teenage pregnancy strategy will have to operate alongside the strategies on HIV and sexual health. However, the HIV strategy was announced in 1998 for publication the following year, and the sexual health strategy was announced in a press release in 1999 for publication the following year. The proposal to integrate them was announced last year, with a view to publishing something in the spring of this year, but nothing has emerged. The Department is responsible for joined-up government and delivery, but unless it gets a move on, the deliveries in terms of teenage pregnancy are not those that any of us in this House would want.

Barbara Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be pleased to know that the strategy is going out for consultation.

Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of teenage pregnancy too often focuses on teenage girls, and that we ought to focus also on teenage boys and the part that they play? If we want to tackle teenage pregnancy, we have to encourage greater responsibility among not only teenage girls but boys who too often just walk away from their responsibility.

Barbara Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a serious matter. One issue is the role models that we present to young women and young men to show them the need to care for themselves, their partners and their families. We need to present a model that young boys can look up to and respect, and that is part of the strategy that we are adopting.

Ann Winterton: Surely the report underlines the failure of sex education, which has perhaps focused too much on the mechanics instead of engaging young people of both sexes in a dialogue, giving them valid reasons for postponing sexual activity and concentrating on the importance of stability in relationships. Will the Minister consider the reasons why Holland has been more successful in its sex education policy, admittedly against a background of greater family stability? Does she agree that parents have responsibilities and need to be involved in that?

Barbara Roche: Of course, and I will certainly look at the information to which the hon. Lady refers. Parents have an absolute responsibility in that regard and should be fully involved. However, the stakes are high indeed, and factors of poverty and inequality are also involved. The risk of becoming a teenage mother is almost 10 times higher for girls from the poorest backgrounds than for girls from the richest backgrounds. That should give us all pause for thought and I am sure it will be common ground across the House that it is time to act now.

Departmental Services

Helen Jackson: If he will review the way in which Government Departments publicise their services.

Christopher Leslie: Ministers are responsible for the information output of their Departments. The Government are constantly looking at ways of improving the overall information strategy for the public.

Helen Jackson: I am sure that the very welcome new boy to the Cabinet Office will agree that Government achievements are so satisfactory that they need no spin. Will he, with the new Information Commissioner, institute a new drive to ensure the growth of a culture of openness in every Department about the information it puts out? That information should be freely and easily accessible to the public, as well as easy to read and simple to understand.

Christopher Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments. It is nice that so many people have turned up for my first Question Time. I agree with my hon. Friend about the principle of freedom of information, and that is why the Government have introduced for the first time a statutory right of access to information held by all public authorities. However, there is a wider principle involving the need to promote proactively the rights and benefits that Government policies have introduced, including the pensioners minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage.

Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the Minister and endorse the question asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), but I ask the Government to be much more modest in their claims. I congratulate the Government on failing to produce their annual report this year. In areas such as mine—the Minister of State will know this because she cut her political teeth there in 1984 fighting in a by-election with me—one in 10 people now wait more than a year for in-patient care, the schools are warned that they will have to move to a four-day week and we have the lowest police funding in the country. The spin and rhetoric lead to great disappointment. Is the Minister aware that in areas such as Surrey we see public squalor amid private affluence?

Christopher Leslie: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. She might not have noticed that we have just had a general election, which probably rendered publication of an annual report this year something of a duplication. She mentioned several other matters, of which some at least were a little subjective. It is important to have good, independent and audited information, and that is what the Government Information and Communication Service is all about.

e-government

Michael Connarty: What assessment has been made of the potential for using the JANET project in the e-government project.

Christopher Leslie: The Government are making good progress in getting services online, and with 42 per cent. already available electronically we are on track to meet our target of having all potential services online by 2005.
	The joint academic computer network, known as the JANET project, connects higher and further education institutions across the UK, and is a good example of how modern broadband technology can improve co-operative research.

Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and commend him for his swift learning curve. I know that he has read the submission to the former Department for Education and Employment on the use of JANET. The network stretches from the south-west of England to the university of the Highlands and Islands, and is already reaching into the community in places such as Telford and Wrekin. The use of broadband technology is expected to grow this year, and the United Kingdom Education and Research Networking Association recommended that we should consider that technology as the natural platform for services such as the People's Network or the NHS Net. Should we not be thinking about using the highway to expand existing services, rather than trying to reinvent an e-government highway that already exists?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. The university and college broadband network could be employed by other services, and we are considering that. There are clear practical and logistical problems with broadband that must be resolved, but perhaps it would be more useful if I were to write to my hon. Friend on this matter

Richard Allan: I welcome a fellow Yorkshireman to the Government Front Bench, but does he agree that, when he speaks about the percentage of Government services that are available online, he should recognise that many of those services are online only to the extent that they involve a telephone, rather than the internet? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) spoke about fast broadband access, and I urge the Minister to take on board what he said. Such access is vital if Government services are to be properly available via the internet, 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about broadband, but I believe that the UK is doing reasonably well in that respect. As for getting Government services online, what is important is to ensure that services are available to the public in the easiest way possible, regardless of the technology involved. However, we must keep bearing down on all Government Departments to ensure that they modernise their services. In that way, we will fulfil the promise that all services will be online by 2005.

Colin Challen: I add my congratulations to my Front-Bench colleagues on their appointments, and draw their attention to early-day motion 85, which relates to the Post Office. It is very good that the Government are addressing the digital divide, but the local sub-post office will still be the main source of information—Government leaflets and so on—for the vast majority of people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that more attention is given to that fact, and that we are not caught up by too much talk of Government online?

Christopher Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend. The Post Office network is, of course, extremely important, which is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced, in the previous Parliament, measures to protect and enhance it. We are not putting services online for the sake of it; we are trying to make sure that we are responsive to consumers and to the public at large.

Regulatory Reform

John Bercow: How many draft regulatory reform orders have been published since the passage of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and if he will made a statement.

Barbara Roche: The first proposal in the form of a draft order was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 28 June. It will relax licensing in pubs and clubs for the forthcoming new year's eve.
	During the passage of the Regulatory Reform Bill, the Government also published six consultation documents on other proposals for regulatory reform orders. There are more to follow.

John Bercow: I shall not get too excited about that, but I warmly congratulate the Minister on her appointment. Will she confirm that, of the seven proposals made by the Government so far, only the one relating to gaming is deregulatory? Does she not understand the widespread suspicion and anxiety that much of the Government's activity in relation to the 2001 Act will be not deregulatory but re-regulatory? When will the Minister do her homework and study in detail the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, both of which were passed by the Government of our good friends the United States of America?

Barbara Roche: It is always good to hear from the hon. Gentleman. We would make a lot more progress if the hon. Gentleman's colleagues were not blocking the establishment of the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. Our record on regulatory reform, particularly with regard to small business, compares very favourably with that of the last Government.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Graham Brady: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 July.

Robin Cook: I have been asked to reply. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently engaged in the talks about Northern Ireland in Shropshire. I know that the whole House—with few exceptions—will want to support the Prime Minister in his efforts to find a way forward at this critical time.

Graham Brady: Will the Leader of the House guarantee that all AS-level results will be published on 16 August?

Robin Cook: I am not in a position to give such a guarantee. However, the review by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has concluded that the new changes have been warmly welcomed and should be supported. There is support throughout schools for the principles of the new changes. The new system has also encouraged a retention rate among pupils. On that basis, we can conclude that we have introduced a system that tackled a problem that was ignored by the last Government. For generations, people have complained that post-16 education is too narrow. We have tackled that. It is a shame that the Conservative party did not do so in its 18 years in office.

Gerry Steinberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a new state-of-the-art private finance initiative hospital has opened recently in my constituency? Apart from the main worry that there may not be enough beds, is he aware that patients, staff and visitors to the hospital have to pay high parking charges, resulting in mayhem in the surrounding streets? Is he also aware that patients are being ripped off by the consortium, with extortionate charges being made for television and telephone usage, and that they even have to hire vases for flowers? Unbelievably, many patients suffer the indignity of having to walk from their ward to the theatre for their operation, because the private consortium charges £30 for a portering service. Is that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I will let the Leader of the House answer.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful question. Of course I understand the concern that some charges cause. I have seen the same happen in my constituency, where car parking charges have been introduced by a hospital that has nothing to do with the private finance initiative. I would have hoped that my hon. Friend and his constituents welcomed the fact that they have a new hospital. Half a dozen other towns in Britain also have a new hospital, built in record time, as a result of the PFI. Owing to the involvement of private finance, we are now in a position to offer the NHS the largest hospital building programme in its history, and of that we are proud.

Angela Browning: We all wish the Prime Minister well with the talks on Northern Ireland.
	Are the Government happy in principle to see the United States withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty if that is what its missile defence plans require? Yes or no?

Robin Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we invited the United States Administration to enter into dialogue with Russia on the future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. She will be aware that both presidents met recently in Slovenia and have started discussions on a new strategic framework. Our own view has always been that there may be a way forward, but that it is a way forward that should be sought by agreement between the two who are parties to the anti-ballistic treaty—as we of course are not.

Angela Browning: But now that Poland, Spain, Italy and the CDU in Germany have given their support to the American plans, is it not time the Government published the Ministry of Defence threat assessment in respect of both the deployment of British troops and the UK mainland? Is it not true that the Government's position is that they continue to sit on the fence? In one week alone, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman have faced a series of hostile questions from the Benches behind them. Indeed, 197 Labour MPs have now signed early-day motion 23 opposing the American scheme, so the Government do not dare take a firm position.
	The Prime Minister's press secretary said that the president's plans were broadly a good idea. Does the Leader of the House think that they are broadly a good idea?

Robin Cook: It is impossible for the Government to express support for plans that do not exist; nor could those countries express support for plans that do not exist. At present, the only specific proposal is to provide missile interceptors and radar in Alaska—that is a long way from our ministerial responsibilities.

John Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the views of the overwhelming majority of my constituents about Finningley airport and its development? The majority are not NIMBYs but YIMBYs—yes in my backyard, please. Can we hope for a fast-track public inquiry on behalf of the YIMBYs in my constituency and on behalf of the regeneration of the area and the aviation industry generally?

Robin Cook: I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is considering measures that can be taken to expedite the public inquiry. My hon. Friend will understand that we have to go through the full procedures, and as the Government will act in a quasi-judicial capacity I cannot comment on the case at present. I assure him, however, that the Department is considering how we can hold a public inquiry as soon as possible in order that my hon. Friend and his constituents can make their views known.

Alan Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister has the support and good wishes of my party in seeking a satisfactory outcome to the Northern Ireland talks?
	To refer back to the question put by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), does the Leader of the House agree that when the Government consider the role of the private sector in public services, especially the private finance initiative, they must look at the full range of evidence so that no individual PFI ends up costing the public more than a publicly funded alternative?

Robin Cook: I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that value for money is one of the two major aspects that are examined when any scheme is considered. All schemes are evaluated against that. One of the issues that has introduced risk and unpredictability to the cost of hospitals is the time in which they are delivered. So far, all six PFI hospitals that have been constructed have been delivered on time, within time, and thus without the risk of the additional costs that have previously caused problems in the health service.

Alan Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) for appearing to cite in a written answer a non-existent report by the National Audit Office and a selective appraisal of PFI projects in order to try to put a better case than actually exists for the funding of those projects? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that illustrates the danger that, when Governments become committed to a policy such as PFI, the Government machine starts to put before Parliament and Ministers only those facts that fit the policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business as Leader of the House to ensure that Parliament can get at all the facts that it needs to scrutinise the Executive, so that we do not get hospitals and schools that cost more than they should, or other policy disasters?

Robin Cook: I am all in favour of Parliament having access to all the information and all the facts. Indeed, it is my broad impression as Leader of the House that the PFI is not an issue that has gone unexplored and unventilated in the Chamber. On the specific point to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—it is true that there was not one NAO report that led to those figures but seven different ones. The figures quoted were absolutely accurate.

Derek Foster: May I tell my right hon. Friend what immense personal pleasure it gives me to see him in his new role? Does he agree that our instruction to deliver from the people of the north-east, including high standards in schools and health, also involves full employment, revisiting the Barnett formula and a directly elected regional assembly?

Robin Cook: I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but my current role expires in 20 minutes' time. I hope that he will give me a pass mark if I can agree with him on only two of the three points that he put to me. We have no plans to revisit the Barnett formula, but on the other two matters I fully agree with him. Unemployment is the lowest it has been for a generation, with 1 million more people in work than at the previous general election, and we have put forward proposals by which regions such as the north-east can have their own regional assembly, which will enable local people to decide how best to deliver local services.

Bob Spink: May I say, but with great sincerity, what a great pleasure it is to see the Leader of the House in his new role? Will he join me in congratulating all who work in or raise funds for hospices, particularly the children's hospice movement? There are 24 children's hospices in this country and they get an average of about 5 per cent. Government funding, but the children's hospice, Littlehaven, in Castle Point, receives only 2 per cent. Government funding.
	I make no political point in this at all. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Sincerely, I ask simply that we can work together to review the funding mechanisms for all hospices so that we can get the balance right between voluntary sector funding and Government funding.

Robin Cook: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman in the tone and spirit in which he asked his question, and fully to acknowledge and recognise the excellent work that is done by the hospice movement, which is able to provide care and attention not just to patients but to relatives at a very difficult time. I believe that the whole House shares my admiration for that patient work.
	On funding, we have made a commitment that we shall look to support the hospice movement in the course of our NHS plan. In the particular case of the hon. Gentleman's health authority, it is for it to decide how much to provide to Littlehaven hospice. We believe that it is right that local decisions should be taken by the local health authorities, which is why we shall carry forward a programme of further decentralisation within health service funding. However, I would record for the hon. Gentleman and the House the fact that, this year, his health authority has had an increase in funding of over 8 per cent., and I hope that that will enable it to meet the demand to which he refers.

Kevin Brennan: Would my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to look again at the proposal in the Queen's Speech to legislate to allow positive action such as all-women shortlists in parliamentary selections? Would he consider extending that provision more widely to include other selections, and would not that have the merit of allowing the Conservative party to have an all-women shortlist instead of an all-loser shortlist?

Robin Cook: I share my hon. Friend's concern to see more women on shortlists, and that is why we shall seek to bring forward legislation as soon as we can. In the context of the current election, I do hope that it is not too late for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to come to the aid of her party. I see that the press have been comparing the Tory leadership elections to "Big Brother". That, I think, is unfair—to "Big Brother". At least when they have a vote in "Big Brother", someone gets kicked out.

Nigel Waterson: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when I try to raise the issues of falling police numbers, low police morale and poor detection rates in Sussex in the House, I am fobbed off by Ministers with the assertion that it is a matter not for them, but for the chief constable, yet only a few days ago his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took it upon himself, in effect, to sack the chief constable of Sussex by means of a press release?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Robin Cook: I am very happy to answer. The fact of the matter is that, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware and as I am pleased to report and repeat to the House, police numbers in England and Wales have gone up by more than 1,300 in the past year. I am also pleased to say that we can expect even larger increases in future years, as in the past year the number of those entering police training is up by no less than 75 per cent.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The PFI developers in this country are quite rightly under attack for renegotiating the loans associated with building schools and new hospitals and for getting cheaper loans and taking the profits. I fully support the PFI, but I do object to those large companies making a substantial profit on the back of public sector investment. Will the Minister take this opportunity to renegotiate the PFI guidelines to ensure that, if profits are being made, they are redistributed to the public sector which financed those initiatives in the first place?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a valid concern. There are only a few cases where there have been refinancing deals, but I am pleased to say that we have changed the rules so that 30 per cent. of any gain will return to the health service. Let us also not lose sight of the fact that we would not be able to sustain our present hospital building programme if we had not shown innovation and imagination in involving more private finance. The previous Government, under the Conservatives, spent £30 million examining private finance initiatives and never launched a single one.

Angela Browning: Last week the Prime Minister told us that he made no apology for the Government's proposed changes to incapacity benefit. Are not vulnerable people being caused unnecessary anxiety in this country because of the bungled, bureaucratic way in which the Government currently manage incapacity benefit applications? Are not the Government really responsible for that? The Government should tidy up and improve the systems that they use, not force vulnerable people to be subject, every three years, to a medical assessment.

Robin Cook: As I told the right hon. Lady last Thursday—I am very happy to repeat it again on this occasion as I obviously failed to convey my meaning clearly—the new scheme will not apply to present claimants. Therefore, none of those currently claiming incapacity benefit need have any anxiety on that score; nor need new claimants, as it is a clear commitment of this Government that we will help those who can work into work and provide security for those who cannot work. That has to be the right principle, and I rather wish that it had been the principle followed by the Conservative party in office; its current leader introduced the medical tests for incapacity benefit, as a result of which thousands of our constituents lost their incapacity benefit.

Angela Browning: It is not the principle of medical testing someone's application for incapacity benefit, but the way this Government administer it that is the problem. In a report that does exist—it was published in March this year—the National Audit Office shows very clearly that the Government's incompetence is causing public money to be misused in incapacity benefit applications. It said that £12 million could be saved for every week that the process was speeded up, but the Government pay the money, the medical assessment takes place months later and the money is never reclaimed by the Government if the person concerned does not qualify. Because of that incompetence, the Government will now force sick people to be subject to yet more tests, with more bureaucracy and more problems for people who will have to keep reapplying to justify the fact that they are disabled or have an incapacity. That is where the problem lies—not with sick people.

Robin Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking for ways to speed up the system. It is a bit rich to express concern about alarm among claimants and then suggest that it is regrettable that the Government do not pursue current claimants when the benefit is removed. I can think of nothing that is more likely to alarm and dismay claimants. Her Government used incapacity benefit as a means of disguising the high levels of unemployment. Now that we have got unemployment down to its lowest level for a generation, we can ensure that we target disability benefits on the disabled so that they get the security they need.

Angela Browning: The problem is the way in which the Government administer the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman will not take my word for it, what does he think of the words of Lord Ashley of Stoke, who knows a bit about disability? In a letter in The Times today, he says:
	"The Government has the power to repeatedly reassess if it wishes, and it undoubtedly uses it. The proposed changes are unnecessary."

Robin Cook: The test was introduced by the leader of the hon. Lady's party and caused many people to lose their incapacity benefit. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will ensure that we approach the problem systematically, to avoid the outcome that she mentioned in which people have to wait a year before they are assessed. The genuinely disabled will get the benefit that they need and continue to get it without pressure being placed on them not to.

Angela Browning: In the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, the Government took powers for themselves that they have failed to use. It is because of that failure that they are going to subject disabled people to the tests. Last week, the Prime Minister also reassured us that people who are genuinely disabled would be supported. Indeed, he said that the Government would go further. What did he mean by that?
	The disability living allowance was introduced by a Conservative Government and awarded for life to people with lifelong disabilities. We can all recall that they lost that recognition of lifelong disability at the hands of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). When the Prime Minister says that people with lifelong disabilities are going to be helped, does he mean the way in which the Government helped them in the previous Parliament—by reducing and removing the lifelong recognition of people who were clearly born with a disability and are going to die with it?

Robin Cook: I cannot accept the hon. Lady's characterisation of what the Government have done for the disabled. We introduced the disability income guarantee and have ensured that children as young as three and four have access to the mobility element of the attendance allowance. In all those ways, we have put money into helping the disabled, which the last Conservative Government never did.
	I remind the House that it is not our intention to bring in additional medical tests to penalise people on incapacity benefit. The measure aims to provide help, which they did not receive when the hon. Lady and her partners were in government, for those who want to find work. Let us not lose sight of the fact that 1 million people on disability benefits say that, given the opportunity and assistance, they would prefer to be in work.

Michael Jabez Foster: Only this morning, I attended the launch of the neighbourhood management programme in my constituency, which is yet another example the Government tackling social exclusion. Indeed, the begging bowl that we have been holding out from Hastings and Rye for some time has been filled over and over again, and we are very grateful. However, my constituents now want a hand up rather than a handout. Will my right hon. Friend impress on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions the need for an early and positive decision on the access to Hastings study, including the bypass?

Robin Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement very soon. He is well aware that the Hastings bypass raises complex issues and differing views have been expressed on it. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to his concern.

Ian Paisley: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next week the Government will lay before the House an order that will take back the powers vested in the new Policing Board and recall the old police authority, because at the talks that he has mentioned the SDLP and Sinn Fein/IRA have refused to put nominees on to the board?

Robin Cook: On the question of what we will do next week, decisions have yet to be made, so I cheerfully invite the hon. Gentleman to join us at business questions tomorrow. I stress that to achieve a stable and peaceful outcome in Northern Ireland it is important to have an efficient police force that commands the support and confidence of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and the Government will not be deflected from that objective.

Andrew Dismore: Yesterday, Edgware school in my constituency was given the go-ahead to become a city academy. That presents an exciting challenge to the school, which serves many disadvantaged children. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that children from disadvantaged areas continue to have priority for places at the school, so that they benefit from the magnificent extra investment that the school will receive in the next few years?

Robin Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome to the new city academy in Barnet, and I am sure that his constituents are grateful for the new facility. It is important that we develop education in a way that provides diversity and specialisation and responds to the special needs of the area that my hon. Friend represents. The school will be publicly funded and therefore be part of the state sector, so I hope that it will be able to respond to my hon. Friend's plea to continue to give special priority to those who live in the area.

Simon Thomas: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a potential disaster in west Wales? The Ministry of Defence wants to withdraw £750,000 of public funding from the apprenticeship scheme at Aberporth following privatisation. Not only will that endanger 80 jobs in my constituency, but it threatens an objective 1 bid for a high-tech technology park at Aberporth that would offer precisely the sort of job creation opportunities that I am sure the Government welcome. The decision rests wholly with the MOD and the Secretary of State for Defence. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the proposal to withdraw is rejected and that high-class training—the best in the United Kingdom—continues at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Aberporth?

Robin Cook: I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance. First, the MOD has given an undertaking that all apprentices currently at the school will continue to be funded and will therefore be able to complete their apprenticeship. Secondly, the MOD is discussing with the trade unions future intakes of apprentices in the area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of the MOD proposals is to provide long-term stability and a future for the facility; and where possible to extend, not narrow, the opportunities for young people in his area.

Fiona Mactaggart: After the recent appalling events in Bradford and elsewhere, what is my right hon. Friend's assessment of the state of race relations in Britain today, and what are the Government going to do to ensure that everybody from every community in Britain has equal access to opportunities and the ability to contribute positively to our society?

Robin Cook: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the recent riots in Bradford. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House yesterday, and we all agree that there is no justification or excuse for the violence we witnessed there; it must not be accepted.
	I do not, however, want the impression to be given that the events in Bradford are typical of race relations in Britain. The Government have taken many steps to improve race relations: we introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 precisely to address the issue that my hon. Friend raised, which is to put an obligation on all public service providers to provide their service in a way that treats the races equally and reaches out to minorities. If there is one issue on which I hope all parties in the House are united it is that we must defend democracy against those racist organisations that have helped to foment violence and now seek to profit from it. We must not allow their poisonous message to succeed.

Julian Brazier: Is the Leader of the House aware of the sheer despair that has led nearly all the junior hospital doctors in east Kent to talk of an impending catastrophe because of undercapacity? Does he realise that they have been issuing hand bells to people waiting on trolleys in our three accident and emergency units to draw attention to their problems? Does he really think it right that our local health authority wants to spend £100 million on a bureaucratic reorganisation that is opposed by both local community health councils and which will not provide one single extra bed or nurse?

Robin Cook: I am very pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that funding for his health authority in the current year is up by almost 9 per cent. on last year, and that throughout the lifetime of this Government the average increase in funding for his health authority has been double the average increase under the Government whom he supported. If he had pressed that Government at the time, his hospital might be in a better position than it is now.

Point of Order

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Speaker, you are the guardian of the rights of all Members of Parliament, so will you consider the position in relation to a note from the Electoral Commission that has been sent to many, if not all, hon. Members about the treatment of parking passes from BAA plc for Members at airports? Hon. Members have expressed concern that the commission in its early days may not fully appreciate the position of Members of Parliament. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will be anxious to talk to both sides of the House through the usual channels, and particularly, perhaps, to Home Office Ministers, under whose remit the Electoral Commission comes. Will you consider carefully the letter that hon. Members have received and whether the matter relates to MPs' privileges?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I am aware of the problem and shall look into it.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 10th July and pursuant to the Programme Order of 4th July 2001 (proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill),—
	(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the third allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.);
	(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.
	
		Table
		
			 Allotted day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day Amendment No. 1 8.00 p.m. (or 5.00 p.m. if a Thursday)   
			  Remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on Clauses 2 to 4 — 
			 Second day Remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 to 4 (so far as not previously concluded) 10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday) 
			 Third day New Clauses 4 to 6 7.00 p.m. (or 4.00 p.m. if a Thursday)  
			  Remaining New Clauses 10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday)  
		
	
	(3) any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the fourth allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.).
	I am pleased to move the motion for the first programme drawn up by the Programming Committee. The purpose of changing our method of programming is to move the initial debate on the size of the time envelope for debate on a Bill from the Floor of the House to Committee, where there will be less grandstanding and more opportunity for sensible discussion. I hope that the programme will prove the wisdom of that approach.
	Now that the detailed programme proposed by the Programming Committee has been published in the Order Paper, it is for the House to decide whether to agree to it. I hope that it agrees that it reflects the Opposition's priorities and ensures that all matters of concern to Members are properly debated. That was certainly my intention when the Committee met yesterday. Some 276 amendments have been tabled, not all of them by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It is important that all the key issues are fully debated, and three full days in Committee will give ample time to address them. The arrangements will allow us to tackle properly each substantive clause, and will enable the House to address various proposals for new clauses—a point of some importance to the Opposition.
	It is proposed that the first substantive debate on qualified majority voting take place today until 8 pm. For the rest of the day and the second day in Committee, we shall cover other amendments to clauses 1 to 4. On the third and final Committee day, we shall address proposals for new clauses 4, 5 and 6 until 7 o'clock, and then the remaining new clauses. I commend the motion to the House.

Richard Spring: The Bill raises fundamental questions about the future development of the European Union, and the issues are extremely complex.
	In Committee, we shall discuss comprehensively such matters as the extension of qualified majority voting in 31 articles and 35 provisions; European defence policy outside NATO and its effect on the Western European Union and NATO; enhanced flexibility and the loss of the emergency brake veto; Eurojust and its effect on United Kingdom criminal and judicial procedures; detailed reforms of the European Court procedures; the extension of EU competence in areas such as common commercial policy; the social chapter, European political parties and several other institutional reforms; structural funds and the effect of the extension of QMV on the United Kingdom's regions; and a possible referendum in Britain to address the lack of democratic accountability and the disconnection with the structures of the EU.
	Given the Government's contention, which we hotly contest, that the treaty and the Bill are essential for enlargement, presumably they, too, believe that the Bill's contents are fundamentally important. That makes their attitude disappointing.
	We believe that the issues require four days of debate in Committee. That is more important than any more general debate after the Committee stage. It would be a matter for regret if the Government were to curtail the opportunity for us to analyse these important changes in full. I unequivocally put our sentiments about that on the record.

Eric Forth: I am slightly surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) seems to know as well as the Minister how long the Bill will take in Committee. The difficulty that we confront is the apparent ability of hon. Members on both Front Benches to foretell with great accuracy and precision how long it will take a Committee properly to scrutinise a Bill, without necessarily knowing the totality of amendments and new clauses that will be tabled, as that process can continue during the Committee stage. Perhaps the Government, and even my hon. Friend, expect the Committee to take not a dynamic approach, but a rather static approach, whereby we freeze the item at the beginning, take a view of it, or a snapshot, and say, "Well, that's your lot."
	That is not good enough. It is the ultimate absurdity that, in relation to a Bill of such magnitude and importance, the Government say that they not only know exactly how long deliberations will take in totality, but, with their huge majority, are laying down the detailed timetable for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, regardless of the magnitude of the matters under consideration and without any knowledge—by definition—of the number and nature of the amendments that may be tabled. There may, however, be partial knowledge of the amendments at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has already tabled a number of extremely important amendments, which merit substantial debate and consideration.
	Of course, the Government are not interested in that. They see it as their task to get rid of legislation as quickly and as conveniently as possible—not for the Government or their Members any delay or prolongation of deliberation. That is apparently unacceptable to people who—I concede this even about Government Members—dedicated considerable time and effort to being elected as Members of Parliament, but who, as soon as they arrive here, cannot wait to get out of the building as quickly as possible. They do not want to be delayed by the inconvenience and superfluity of consideration of the details of Bills.
	Oh no, such matters are not for the Government or their Members. They regard what they choose to call "the mandate" as sufficient. If the mandate given to them by the electorate at the time of an election states that they are entitled to certain legislation, the Government seem ready to override the deliberative processes developed in the House over many centuries, which may, I concede, occasionally cause inconvenience to the Government and their Members. Yes, they may be delayed in this place a little longer than they would have chosen. Perhaps they want more time out of the building to dispose of the increase in pay that they all voted themselves just last week.

John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is addressing the House with that combination of charm and understatement for which he is renowned in all parts of it. Does he agree that there can never be any justification in any circumstances for the abandonment of self-government by legislative default and by what amounts to parliamentary truancy from the Government Benches?

Eric Forth: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every time we consider a programme motion, we see that it provides excuses for hon. Members not to be present, rather than any reason for them to be here attending to their duties. It seems that the point of the exercise is to shrink to the minimum the time that we commit to the scrutiny of legislation.
	That is a bad principle in itself, but it is underlain by the assumption that the Minister knows so much about the mood of the House and about what hon. Members have in mind that he can foretell with great precision how long it will take the Committee properly to consider the details of the Bill, notwithstanding the number, scope and importance of the amendments that have been tabled. Surely it is possible for further amendments and new clauses to be tabled during the Committee stage, unless we are to be denied even that right. Of course, such amendments would require further deliberation, so almost by definition we cannot know at this stage how much time we will require properly to consider the detail of the Bill.
	The motion is yet another step on a road that the House has taken; at least, the Government have taken it, but I hope that my hon. Friends have not done so. The Government seem determined to minimise or dispose of all opportunities for proper scrutiny of legislation.

Roger Casale: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he is saying that there should be greater time to debate the treaty of Nice in this place. He speaks from the Back Benches, but the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who spoke from the Front Benches, would like the matter to be decided by a referendum. Which of the two deliberative processes should it be?

Eric Forth: I should certainly be intrigued about the possibility of a referendum on the Nice treaty, as on any matter of profound constitutional importance. If we can have a referendum on a matter as utterly trivial and irrelevant as the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor, there should be ample scope for one on something as important as our nationhood. I would not shrink from that possibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the programme motion.

Eric Forth: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know that you would not want me to pursue such matters.
	I concede that the great danger in programme motion debates is the appearance of repetition on the part of Opposition Members. I make no apology for that, as the underlying principles to which we object remain the same in each case, although the detail is different. The principle is even more important in respect of this Bill, not only because of its scope and enormity, but in the light of the number and scale of the amendments that have been tabled, to say nothing of those of which we cannot yet even be aware.
	I oppose the programme motion, just as I hope that I shall continue to oppose all such motions—on principle and in relation to their application, detail and the terms in which they are presented. For me, they demonstrate all too well the Government's attitude, as they seek constantly to diminish the role of the House of Commons, its Members and its Committees, whether Upstairs or on the Floor of the House. I hope that hon. Members will oppose this and all other such motions.

Menzies Campbell: I support the principle of a programme motion where it is demonstrated that adequate time has been provided to ensure that all parts of a Bill are properly scrutinised and that all those who have realistic amendments can speak to them and gain a response from the Government. In respect of the motion before us, which allots three full days in Committee, I say respectfully that it seems to me that those criteria have been more than satisfied.
	Interestingly, the contributions that we have so far heard from the official Opposition suggest that they would prefer a wholly open-ended arrangement. The Bill would thus become the Marie Celeste of the legislative programme, travelling hither and thither, with no clear destination. That is because the official Opposition believe that delay equals scrutiny. I have never been persuaded by that argument. Anyone who has faced 50 minutes of cross-examination by the late Mr. George Carman QC realises that delay does not necessarily equal scrutiny, and that a point of any substance can be made succinctly, effectively and in a short time.
	I am convinced that the official Opposition are anxious not to scrutinise the Bill but to ensure that it never reaches the statute book. [Interruption.] That is a perfectly legitimate position. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) must calm himself.

Menzies Campbell: The Opposition's position is legitimate, but it should not be given spurious respectability, as if their determination to scrutinise every provision line by line, phrase by phrase lies at the heart of their objections.

Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that, however succinctly a point is made, elements of the Bill that we have not previously considered will come before us. Their consideration will take time, and anything that is introduced later will inevitably be denied that time. We experienced that difficulty time and again when a programme motion was agreed for the Scotland Bill. Many clauses were not discussed, to the great frustration of Labour Members, simply because provisions that were not expected to take much time did so.

Menzies Campbell: It would have frustrated the people of Scotland if the Bill had been considered in the way in which the Opposition are urging upon us this afternoon. Their position would be legitimate if many Conservative Members who are present had not been party to guillotine motions in the 18 years that they were in government. Some of us remember legislation that was pushed through on a three-line Whip. Guillotines were used to ensure its passage because the Conservative Government believed that it was in the national interest and perhaps in their political interest to do that.
	Protestations in support of endless delay whereby intellectual scrutiny can somehow be achieved carry little conviction from those who have in the past used every device available to a Government to ensure that their legislation reached the statute book.

Eric Forth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Menzies Campbell: No.

Eric Forth: What is the problem?

Menzies Campbell: I am about to sit down so that we can get on to the real business of the Bill.
	The programme motion is reasonable and sensible. We should adopt it and proceed to the substance of the Bill, about which the Opposition claim to be worried. 3.48 pm

William Cash: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the point that delay does not equal scrutiny. I have never believed that. However, legislation, especially on the scale of the Bill, which incorporates a treaty into our domestic law, requires rational analysis and proper examination. It cannot be done in the limited time available under the programme motion. It is frankly impossible, and the Government know it.
	The relevant early-day motion and the Parliament First group received support from all parties. This afternoon, we are considering proper scrutiny and the independence of Back-Bench Members. I make no apology for tabling 250 amendments and new clauses because the treaty requires proper examination. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of that in the parameters of the programme motion.
	We need to get on and, in the interests of brevity, I shall simply add that I am slightly surprised, though not offended, that I was given no opportunity to participate in the Programming Committee, despite tabling so many amendments. Perhaps that is because the procedures do not allow it. The Prime Minister himself has suggested that he would like to see my pamphlet, along with the amendments and the arguments, and I have sent them to him. I am glad to see that the Minister, with whom I have had perfectly amiable relations over a long time, is holding up my pamphlet.
	I have told the Minister in advance that, because of the shortage of time and because we do not have an opportunity to go into all the matters in the depth required, I will send him my briefing papers, which are also being supplied to certain Conservative colleagues of mine. He can then respond to them in writing. I should simply like to know, before we start these proceedings, whether he would be glad to follow that as an alternative procedure to the proper examination of this matter on the Floor of the House.

John Bercow: It is a crying shame, and no great tribute to the Minister for Europe that he should come to the House this afternoon to commend to it quite the most draconian truncation of debate on an important constitutional measure that we have seen for some considerable time. [Interruption.] People may chunter from sedentary positions in evident disapproval of my expression of that opinion, but I am bound to say to Labour Members that if they wish to cite recent examples of a more severe truncation of debate, I shall be happy to listen to all comers. We are discussing a treaty of the greatest moment for the future of this country. It has profound implications for the future of this nation, and for the question of whether we ultimately remain a nation at all in any meaningful sense. That is not a matter about which people should joke or skit. It is of the first importance.
	I want to say to the Minister for Europe, with whom it is always a pleasure to joust in the House, that it is especially insulting that the Government have proposed to proceed with such a severe circumscription on the time for debate in the light of the decision of the people of Ireland. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—who does not, I hope, have an opinion to express on these matters—seems to regard my reference to the verdict of the people of Ireland with a sniffy disdain that is both unworthy and a regular feature of the Government's attitude. The verdict of the people of Ireland is directly relevant to, and should have implications for, the attitude of the House to whether the process of ratification should proceed at all.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: I am anxious to develop my argument, but it is always irresistible to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Hendrick: The hon. Gentleman seems extremely concerned about the wishes of the people of Ireland. Will he tell us what concerns he has about the wishes of the people of the other 14 member states of the European Union?

John Bercow: I am very interested in their—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very interested, too, but not at the moment. We are debating the programme motion, and hon. Members should not develop that argument.

John Bercow: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am naturally very well behaved, but just occasionally I need a prod from you and I am always exceptionally grateful to you for it. I shall not be tempted down the path of unvirtuous behaviour by the hon. Gentleman.
	The people of Ireland have made an important decision, and we should treat it with respect. There is a real argument as to whether it is constitutionally proper for the House to proceed with consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill at all. I subscribe to the view, which has also been enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), that we should not consider this measure at this time. It is disrespectful to the people of Ireland and a violation of the principles that govern consideration of these matters. If one country chooses positively not to ratify the treaty, the ratification procedure should not proceed. Eminent lawyers are of that opinion, as well as many politicians.
	If we are to proceed, however, let me be characteristically generous-spirited and accept that there is an argument for proceeding, although it is not an argument that I accept. Surely Labour Members can see that there is at least as strong an argument for proceeding more cautiously, for allowing more time, for recognising the case for greater reflection and for acknowledging—and thereby paying tribute to—the fact that hon. Members might wish to table more amendments as the debate proceeds.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he address the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about delay? Does he agree that delay is the precursor of detailed scrutiny, because as the Bill continues its progress through the House, ideas develop and further amendments arise as a result of discussions?

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is both right and eloquent in equal measure. I cannot resist his tempting offer that I should respond to the right hon. and learned Member for North–East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Indeed, I shall deal briefly but with relish with the rather contemptuous speech that he delivered a few moments ago.
	Of all the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, I thought that the most offensive was the description "realistic amendments", which tripped effortlessly off his tongue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a distinguished parliamentarian and a distinguished lawyer, but it is not for him to decide what constitutes a realistic amendment. I do not recognise the accuracy of that description save in one particular, and that is your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that an amendment is in order. If that is your judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to hope that there will be a chance to debate it. It is not for the right hon. and learned Gentleman breezily to dismiss amendments that he does not like as unrealistic.
	I am a little worried about my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who is an exceptionally diligent parliamentarian, because so far he has tabled only 250 amendments. That is a magnificent performance, but he is capable of a great deal better. As he observes the progression of the debate, it is very likely that he will decide to table further amendments.
	The Minister for Europe is a brainy fellow. He can make the calculation quite readily. Let us suppose that on each of the three days of parliamentary debate that we are to be permitted—these crumbs from the table which have been flicked in our direction by an arrogant and supercilious Government—there are seven hours to debate the Bill. Let us assume that there will be approximately 20 hours or 1,200 minutes of debate.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is very rarely in error in these matters, but I fear that on this occasion he may be because the proposed programme measure sets an absolute end time for each period of deliberation. My hon. Friend does not know—and nor do any of us, including the Minister—what other business may precede our deliberations on the Bill before that absolute end time to which we are now invited to agree. So does my hon. Friend agree that whatever calculations he has made may already be in error because the allocated time could be encroached upon and reduced by as yet unknown business?

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct in that observation. I was offering my own surmise of what we are likely to get from the Government. It is perfectly true that I might have erred on the side of optimism and generosity towards Ministers. It is perfectly possible, and indeed quite likely, that although the Government have chosen not to make any statements today, there may be statements on one or other—or both—of the two remaining days set down for considering the Bill in Committee. If that were the case, my calculation would be that we would have fewer than 20 hours of debate.

Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: I shall give way in a moment, but I am itching to get this point out and I know that the hon. Gentleman will not hold that against me.
	If we are to have 1,200 minutes for debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has tabled no fewer than 250 amendments on massively important matters, and if the bulk of those amendments are open for debate, it logically follows that there will be fewer than five minutes to debate each of them, on the extremely generous and unlikely assumption that there will be no Divisions. If we have a completely uninterrupted debate, that is how much time we shall have.
	Do Labour Members really think that that is an adequate allocation of time, when we are talking about matters of profound significance such as enhanced co-operation, the future of European defence, the arrogation of powers by the European Union and the extension of qualified majority voting? If they consider that adequate, and most of them do not bother to turn up to debate the issues at stake, I do not know why they troubled themselves to go grovelling to their electors, begging to be voted in, when as soon as they are here they are only too happy to denude the House of its remaining powers.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend take this argument a little further, but not necessarily to its ultimate conclusion, by reflecting on the fact that the important thing is not that we are debating the issue here, albeit with so few Members in the House, which I deplore, but that we are providing information for people outside, to enable them to make a decision about the merits of what is before us? It is a disgrace that such a programme motion should prevent those people from knowing.
	Furthermore, on Second Reading, there was no reference whatever, to my knowledge, to the fact that the principle of the Bill was being acceded to by the House of Commons on the BBC. There was no reference either to the speeches that were made, or indeed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.

John Bercow: It might have been long but it was both valid and pertinent, as usual. My hon. Friend is entirely correct. All the evidence demonstrates that the public are broadly Eurosceptical, but we delude ourselves if we suppose for a moment that the mass of the British public are knowledgeable about or have yet developed an interest in the detailed contents of the treaty of Nice. It is our responsibility fully to debate the issues, to set out the arguments and to demonstrate to the public what the implications are and what the irrevocable loss of the power of self-government that the Bill inevitable entails will mean. That is what we want to do, and it is from that that Labour Members seem so suspiciously anxious to shy away.

Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman log on to his server and dig into the massive database that he carries around with him to advise the House when the Conservative Government allowed approximately 40 minutes per line for debate on a Bill? We are dealing with a 34-line Bill.

John Bercow: That is an entirely spurious point, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He has tossed me a bone, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I intend to maul it. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Bill contains 31 extensions of qualified majority voting; that there are issues of institutional reform at stake; and that the treaty entails consideration of our future defence arrangements. He recognises that there is nothing in the treaty to atone for the inadequacies of the treaty of Amsterdam in respect of the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. For the hon. Gentleman, who is well informed, knowingly to seek to skew the debate and give the impression to people following our proceedings that this is a minor, tidying measure is unworthy of him. There are major issues at stake.

Andrew Miller: Answer the question.

John Bercow: I am answering the question with alacrity and gusto, and I intend to continue to do so.
	Of course there is scope for difference of opinion on the subject and it is perfectly honourable to be, as the hon. Gentleman is, a Euro-federast. There is nothing dishonourable about his position—it just suffers from the demerit of being wrong. He is entitled to his view. However, we ought to be open and honest about the contents of the treaty. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that just because a shell Bill is all that is required to give effect to the contents of the treaty—that measure itself is just a shell—is unworthy of him.
	I will go one stage further and, in the process, I will probably be slapped on the wrist by the Opposition Whips, and possibly by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). It is no good the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) deploying arguments about what happened in relation to previous treaties. I was a parliamentary virgin in the last Parliament, but I am not quite a parliamentary virgin now. It is no good the hon. Gentleman chuntering about the allocation of time, for example, for the consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam or the treaty of Maastricht. I am on the record on many occasions as objecting in the greatest detail not only to the treaty of Amsterdam, but to the treaty of Maastricht. I took great risks with my chances of getting selected as a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate at all because I thought that the Major Government were profoundly mistaken to ram through the treaty of Maastricht. I am not apologetic about that; that is my view, and I am entitled to it.
	Above all, I believe passionately—more than in any other principle—in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and national self-government. It pains me deeply whenever I see any Government—be it of the left or of the right—compromising, devaluing or discarding that principle. That is what the Minister is proposing to do today. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Peter Hain: It is tempting to reply in detail to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and others. He spoke with his usual eloquence and parliamentary skill. It is tempting because those listening to the debate may think that some horrendous crime is being committed by the Government, given the gusto with which he spoke.
	The fact is that the House agreed overwhelmingly to the procedure to have timetables and programme motions for Bills such as this, so that there is sensible and serious debate on all the issues. I want that debate to take place and I want the amendments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to be discussed. He shows considerable diligence and expertise in tabling the amendments, and he is entitled to have them debated. Virtually the whole of the second day will be devoted to his amendments, and quite right too.
	At yesterday's meeting of the Programming Committee there was a great deal of consensus. The Conservative Opposition—rightly, from their point of view, but wrongly in principle—said that they wanted an extra day for consideration. That point was registered and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has repeated it. However, I remind him that the Amsterdam treaty—a much more complex, far-reaching and fundamental treaty—took four days in Committee. It is appropriate and proportionate that this treaty, which is much less significant, should take three days in Committee. I did not say that it was an insignificant treaty; it is very important.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) implied that there was a detailed timetable; there is not. There is plenty of scope and few end times for the debates. If it were seen that time was running out, obviously it could be in the power of the Chairman of Ways and Means to reconvene the Programming Committee. That facility is within the rules, as decided by the House.
	I say to the hon. Member for Stone that the Opposition leadership could have put him on the Programming Committee. It was not my decision, but theirs. I would have loved to see him there.

William Cash: If I send the Minister the briefing amendments and the reasons for them, and if there is no opportunity to discuss them, will he get someone to reply in writing to me?

Peter Hain: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not responding to that point. I will happily do as he asks. I will be interested in the extra overtime required from the Foreign Office to deal with his points. He may want to table a parliamentary question. [Laughter.] On the other hand, he may not. I will read his pamphlet with great interest.

John Bercow: We will test the Minister on it.

Peter Hain: I will not rise to that challenge. I look forward to receiving the briefing from the hon. Member for Stone.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 141.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, in accordance with the resolution of the Programming Committee of 10th July and pursuant to the Programme Order of 4th July 2001 (proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on consideration and on Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill),—
	(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the third allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.);
	(2) those proceedings shall be taken on each of the allotted days as shown in the second column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown, and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the times specified in the third column of the Table.
	
		Table
		
			 Allotted day Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day Amendment No. 1 8.00 p.m. (or 5.00 p.m. if a Thursday)   
			  Remaining proceedings on Clause 1 and proceedings on Clauses 2 to 4 — 
			 Second day Remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 to 4 (so far as not previously concluded) 10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday) 
			 Third day New Clauses 4 to 6 7.00 p.m. (or 4.00 p.m. if a Thursday)  
			  Remaining New Clauses 10.00 p.m. (or 7.00 p.m. if a Thursday)  
		
	
	(3) any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 p.m. on the fourth allotted day (or, if that day is a Thursday, 7.00 p.m.).

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	European Communities (Amendment) Bill
	 — 
	1st Allotted Day

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair]
	 — 
	Clause 1
	 — 
	Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice

Richard Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 32, 36 subsection (b), 37 sub-section (b) as it relates to qualified majority voting, 41, 42 as it relates to qualified majority voting, and 44.'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 2.'.
	No. 4, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 3.'.
	No. 5, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 5.'.
	No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 9.'.
	No. 7, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 12.'.
	No. 8, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 13.'.
	No. 9, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 14.'.
	No. 10, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 15.'.
	No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 16.'.
	No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 18.'.
	No. 13, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 19.'.
	No. 14, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 20.'.
	No. 15, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 21.'.
	No. 16, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraphs 22 and 23.'.
	No. 17, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 29.'.
	No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 30.'.
	No. 20, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 36, subsection (b)'.
	No. 21, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than in the final line of Article 2, paragraph 37, the words "acting by a qualified majority.".'.
	No. 22, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 41.'.
	No. 23, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than in Article 2, paragraph 42 the words "acting by a qualified majority".'.
	No. 24, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 44.'.
	No. 25, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 4.'.
	No. 26, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 6.'.
	No. 27, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 7.'.
	No. 57, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2 paragraph 10'.
	No. 80, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 2'.
	No. 81, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 3'.
	No. 82, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 3, paragraph 4'.
	No. 106, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 6'.
	No. 107, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 4, paragraph 7'.
	No. 233, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than in Article 2 paragraph 4 the words "with the exception of aspects relating to family law".'.
	No. 28, in page 1, line 12, after "occasion", insert—
	'other than the Protocol on Article 67 of the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
	New clause 11—Implications for regions of amendment to Article 161 TEC—
	'Prior to 2007, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report assessing the implication for the regions of the United Kingdom of the changes provided for by Article 2, paragraph 14, of the Nice Treaty, amending Article 161 TEC.'.

Richard Spring: Today, we start our detailed discussions on the provisions of the Bill, which indeed are wide ranging. It is fitting that our proceedings should start with the issue of qualified majority voting, as its extension is a dominant theme throughout much of the Bill and the treaty.
	Amendment No. 1 is a catch-all provision covering extensions of QMV in the treaty establishing the European Community, over which the United Kingdom does not have an opt-out. The extensions are covered in separate amendments tabled for discussion today, although right hon. and hon. Members may be reassured to learn that I do not intend to speak to all of them.
	During all our discussions in the Committee, we shall try to measure this and other provisions against one yardstick: will they assist in the development of a modern, enlarged, diverse Europe that enhances the security and prosperity of the peoples of Europe? It is important that we consider the effect of the Bill on Britain itself, but the treaty is for the whole of the European Union. The effect of the treaty on the whole of Europe must be our dominant consideration.
	We contend that while letting Britain down in the Nice negotiations the Government also let down the rest of Europe. The approach taken at Nice is no more in the interests of people elsewhere in Europe, especially those in the applicant states, than it is in the interests of the people of Britain.
	A little more than three months ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a report on European enlargement and the treaty of Nice. It concluded:
	"The Treaty of Nice has proved to be much more substantial than the United Kingdom Government and others initially envisaged."
	Does not that encapsulate the result of the Government's lack of leadership at Nice? Is not it inevitable that when our Government fail to put the case for reform, other Governments will fill the vacuum? Do Labour Members take pride in the fact that it was their Government who were taken by surprise by an agenda set by others? What does that say about the negotiating skills of the Ministers who represented us?
	The remainder of the Select Committee's conclusion should be to the forefront of our minds as we consider the future:
	"The 2004 IGC looks certain to be very much more substantial still, going to the very heart of the balance between the EU's governmental and parliamentary institutions and those of the member states."
	Whenever the Government look as though they are about to repeat the mistakes they made at Nice—playing down the likelihood of a substantial agenda, refusing to show leadership and being taken by surprise by the leadership shown by others—we shall endeavour to remind them of the Select Committee's conclusion. It is crucial that Britain is proactively involved in the debate leading up to the intergovernmental conference.
	Today, we are examining a particular result of the Government's lack of leadership: the extension of qualified majority voting in 31 articles or 35 areas. As I said, we should assess every measure taken at Nice against one main yardstick: is the measure right for a diverse, enlarged Europe that will be acceptable to the citizens of member states?

Andrew Miller: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he opposes the extension of QMV in principle or only in specific areas?

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. He may not be aware that in our 1997 general election manifesto we made it plain that we would not extend QMV and that we would not be in favour of it. That principle remains. We also want to draw a line to enable a movement back to national Parliaments and to their authority. The main threat to the EU is the disconnection of the peoples of Europe from the EU's institutions and structures. If that disconnection persists, that is the route the EU should take—not the one-way route to integration.

Menzies Campbell: Are we to understand from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that if it were demonstrated that it was in the interests of the United Kingdom and of the European Union that there should be an extension of qualified majority voting in a particular area, the hon. Gentleman would still not be in favour of it?

Richard Spring: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously misunderstood me. We want to draw a line to say that powers must be returned to national Parliaments, and we wanted that line to be drawn at Nice. I am sure that is difficult for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand, given the almost unbelievable attitude of Liberal Democrats to the whole political integration process in the European Union.

Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: I shall make some progress.
	We must assess every measure proposed at Nice against the yardstick of what is acceptable to the citizens of member states. That is a huge challenge for us all, and if we do not address it the success and viability of the European Union will be in peril. I hope that the Liberal Democrats in particular understand the difficulties of that.
	The wide extension of QMV is one of the Nice provisions that fails that test most graphically. Some of the items in the list have the potential to be particularly damaging in themselves, but all of them, even the ones characterised by the Government as relatively minor, indicate a direction towards uniform integration that is absolutely the wrong one for a Europe on the verge of enlargement to take.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) pointed out on Second Reading, the idea that harmony and unity in a diverse, enlarged Europe can be increased by extending
	"the areas in which the majority can ride roughshod over the wishes of a minority"
	only has to be stated to be seen to be completely ludicrous. As he said,
	"That is a recipe for discord, not harmony. It is a recipe for division, not unity."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 279.]
	The central and eastern European applicant states are among those who have the most to lose from a centralised approach and a lack of respect for diversity.
	We are told—wrongly, of course—that the areas in which QMV is being extended are relatively minor: for example, nothing but the pension arrangements for the Court of Auditors, to use the Prime Minister's mistaken example that he gave in December in the House. If that were true, they would hardly be essential prerequisites for enlargement and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) brilliantly and accurately pointed out in the House last week, the two arguments used for the Nice treaty—that it is, at the same time, essential and inconsequential—are mutually exclusive and utterly contradictory.
	I turn to a couple of specific aspects of QMV to illustrate our concerns; I will return to them in more detail later if there is the opportunity to do so.
	First, I should like to address the extension of QMV in article 13, relating to incentive measures in the area of anti-discrimination. That is covered by amendments Nos. 1 and 3. The agreed wording makes it clear that any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states is excluded, so what precisely is meant by "Community incentive measures"? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us, although his predecessor certainly could not. When asked at the European Scrutiny Committee, after the Nice treaty had been agreed, what the new incentive measures on anti-discrimination would amount to, the then Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), replied,
	"I do not know. It has just been agreed".
	Is not that precisely the problem? Why do Ministers persist in agreeing to open-ended extensions of qualified majority voting without having the first idea about what proposals might follow? It is an extraordinary way to negotiate on behalf of the peoples of the United Kingdom.

John Bercow: Would my hon. Friend care to cast his mind back to our exchanges on Second Reading last week? He will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) believed that it was right that QMV should apply on anti-discrimination measures and that there should be a formal European Union position. Would my hon. Friend, by contrast, not agree with me that important though anti-discrimination policy undoubtedly is, it is pre-eminently a matter for democratically elected members of the British legislature and is no business whatever of the European Union?

Richard Spring: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but we must accept that the position of the Liberal Democrat party, of which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is a member, is to have a written constitution for the European Union, to remove further the powers of national Parliaments and to have much greater centralisation. The Liberal Democrats have consistently pursued that theme whenever the issue arises.

Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: indicated assent

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, after all. It is just as well that I do not have a persecution complex, because he does not seem to be able to complete a sentence without mentioning me or my party. The purpose of a constitution would be to ensure that the rights, roles and responsibilities of EU institutions were set down clearly and unequivocally, enabling people to understand what the EU is about. The hon. Gentleman ought to be in favour of such clarity.

Richard Spring: I am perfectly satisfied that the laws on discrimination, and so on, that govern the people of the United Kingdom adequately protect them. If we continue to centralise the structures of the EU, the process of alienation of the people of the EU from its structures and institutions will only grow worse. I find it extraordinary that that is not understood, particularly after the Irish referendum.

Doug Henderson: rose—

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Richard Spring: I propose to make to a little more progress.
	The treaty of Nice extends qualified majority voting in article 100, which covers measures to be taken in the event of severe difficulties in the supply of certain products and Community financial assistance to member states in severe difficulties. That is covered by amendment No. 5, and it is also included in amendment No. 1. Perhaps the Minister would now like to explain what that provision does. What are the benefits for Britain of that extension of QMV?
	On the face of it, that extension allows fairly sweeping powers. Subsection (1) of article 100 allows the Council of Ministers, now by QMV, to
	"decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products".
	When asked, the Minister's predecessor said that that did not, for example, extend competence over North sea oil reserves. We can be grateful for that, but the provision was used for Council directive 1998/93/EC, which amended a directive imposing an obligation on member states of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and petroleum products. Whatever the merits of that decision, and without the article extending competence over the supply of a particular reserve, could it not nevertheless be used to pass further legislation on such issues in future—this time by QMV?
	Will the Government list which products fall under the scope of article 100? Who will measure the so-called severe difficulties, and how will they be measured? The second subsection states:
	"Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance to the Member State concerned".
	Will the Minister tell us what was in Ministers' minds when they agreed to abandon the veto on that? Who will define what constitutes an exceptional occurrence beyond the control of a member state?
	On Second Reading, the Minister made great play of the fact that article 100, as revised, will be subject, under declaration 6, to the 2000–06 financial perspective and the "no bail-out rule" laid down in article 103, which states that a member state shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of other member state Governments or other member state public bodies, except in the case of mutual financial guarantees.
	The fact that the Government have to defend their decision to extend QMV on the basis of what it does not do rather than on what it does says a great deal about the measure. If decisions that are made under the article are meant to respect budgetary ceilings, does that not still provide large room for manoeuvre? If the article is not meant to be used to bail out the commitments of other member state Governments or public bodies, what about non-public bodies? If the events are so truly exceptional, why is this extension of QMV essential for enlargement, which is the stock reason for the Nice treaty? Are we expecting more exceptional occurrences in an enlarged Europe? Will the decision-making process grind to a halt without QMV?

Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it was right to extend QMV when the Conservatives were in office, but that it should not be increased in future. The structure of his argument is familiar because it was deployed when the Conservatives opposed increases in tobacco tax and the fuel duty escalator. The difference is that his resistance to extending QMV now is ideologically driven. He has given no practical justification for his argument. Is he really saying that even if there is practical merit in extending QMV, he will resist it?

Richard Spring: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I have been trying to establish the fact that there is no basis to extend QMV in this case without a considered Government view, and all we have heard is multiple contradiction.
	If we have a policy of one size fits all in an enlarged European Community and larger countries gang up on smaller ones by using QMV, the huge increase in EU member states will put fresh strains on administration and structure. If we do not seek protection we will increase the strain that we are under and land ourselves in considerable difficulties. I would have been much happier had the hon. Gentleman stood up and said that the Government fought to return powers to the national Parliament where there can be proper scrutiny to connect us once again with the British people. The fact that the Government have not done that is what is wrong in principle.

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he and his party refuse to accept any extension of QMV in principle?

Richard Spring: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here when I cited our manifesto commitment, which made it plain that we would not seek any extension. In the process of constant negotiation in the EU, we would want to return powers to national Parliaments. That is the crucial objective. If Labour Members who want the European Union to survive and prosper do not accept that the democratic deficit will undermine the structures and success of the EU, they do not understand the fundamental problems.

Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: In a few minutes.
	Several appointments will be subject to a qualified majority vote, and some are far from minor. The high representative for common, foreign and security policy will be subject to QMV under article 207(2) TEC, which is covered by amendments Nos. 1 and 14. That raises the possibility of the EU's two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—Britain and France—being outvoted on the appointment of the EU's foreign policy representative. Article 214 TEC covers the appointment of the Commission President, which is the subject of amendments Nos. 1 and 16. Does the Minister not agree that that appointment is vital? Without the veto, for example, Britain under the Conservatives would not have been able to prevent the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene.
	Article 214, as revised by Nice, states that the Council shall act by qualified majority in adopting the list of commissioners. That is meant to be
	"drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State",
	but that provides no guarantee that the list will be submitted to the Council. Will the Minister tell the House why it is necessary to extend QMV on that matter, or will he give the House a guarantee that no vote on future commissioners will be taken by QMV on the basis of the ideology of the commissioners concerned and against the wishes of the member states that are appointing them?

Phyllis Starkey: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), the hon. Gentleman appeared to argue that it was necessary not to allow an extension of QMV because it would allow large nations to gang up on small ones, yet with his current example he appears to be making the opposite argument—he opposes extension because it would allow everyone else to gang up on a couple of the large nations, namely Britain and France. Will he make clear which of the two reasons worries him most, or is it the case that he is opposed to any extension of QMV and any old argument will do?

Richard Spring: Again, I am disappointed—the hon. Lady does not understand the principle that we are trying to establish. We want a line to be drawn about the remorseless process of political integration that is occurring under the EU, to which the Government appear to subscribe in the absence of any clear alternative. We Conservatives, on the other hand, have set out a clear vision of a much more flexible and diverse EU wherein the one-size-fits-all policy—an ossified example of 1950s and 1960s thinking, frozen in time—is finished for good. Ours is a conception of an EU that should work and our amendments to the Bill represent part of that vision.
	Later, I shall speak in detail to new clause 11, which deals with extensions of the social chapter to structural fund issues. For now, does the Minister accept that the loss of the veto would leave Britain powerless to stop British regions losing out under the provision? The amendment merely asks the Government to be open and honest about the effect of the proposed change on the regions of this country.
	Originally, the Government clearly opposed measures such as those on enhanced co-operation, but they gave way on QMV while offering contradictory justifications, saying that the matters given away were either necessary for the smooth functioning of the EU or unimportant.
	I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will speak in this afternoon's Committee consideration of a highly important series of issues. I conclude by saying that the confusion arises from a Government who, unlike the Governments of so many of our European partners, have no clear view of the architecture of the EU or of what it should be in the next few years and decades to come.

Doug Henderson: As several Members observed on Second Reading, the Conservatives are clearly in some difficulty. I expected the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to say that, given that difficulty, he would be guided by his party's 2001 manifesto, but he told us at the start of his speech that he was still being guided by the Conservatives' 1997 manifesto.

Andrew Miller: More like 1897.

Doug Henderson: If my knowledge of history serves me, right, that slightly predates the establishment of the European Union.
	My electors, watching this afternoon's debate on cable television, will see the hint of hypocrisy that tinges the Conservative party's position on qualified majority voting. Avid watchers of such debates will remember that under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, many extensions were made to QMV. I hate to repeat a point that has been made many times in the Chamber during debates on these matters, but it needs to be said that in the Single European Act, Conservative Members agreed to 12 extensions of QMV. They knew at the time that if those extensions were not included, the Act would not work because countries would just say, "We're sorry, this issue is not in our interest, bang bang." At the same time, Conservative Members do not say that the Single European Act is the most important thing in the EU, but that it is the only thing that matters in the EU. They therefore recognise the need for QMV in the only thing that they regard as a virtue of the EU.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend said that the Conservatives agreed to 12 measures on QMV in the Single European Act. I remind him that they agreed to some 30 such measures in the Maastricht treaty. Does that not smack of hypocrisy?

Doug Henderson: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful for his foresight of my next point. The Conservative party was not unanimous about the Maastricht treaty but, to be fair, most Conservative Members recognised that the treaty was essential if Europe was to hold together, be stable and develop, and accepted that obligations were involved. One obligation was that Parliament could not have exclusive control over decisions on certain issues and that sovereignty had to be pooled on issues where an EU view was needed to prevent a country from vetoing any proposal that it found to be against its interests or that it did not want.
	Electors in my constituency and elsewhere who are watching our debate will say that there is at least some hypocrisy in the Conservative position. If there was hypocrisy in the past, there is neanderthalism today. Opposition Members have their heads in the sand. Even when the tiger is coming up behind, the ostrich is still bending down. Essentially, in their proposals, the Conservatives are saying, "We don't care how practical a proposal is; we don't even care if it's only in Britain's interest. Under no circumstances will we agree to QMV on any issue at any time."

John Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he has blood on his hands from piloting the treaty of Amsterdam in 1998. I am increasingly frustrated by his contribution. Will he confirm his recollection of 19 January 1998, when we debated in detail some of these matters, including subsidiarity and proportionality, that many of us made clear our consistent opposition to QMV in both the treaty of Maastricht and the treaty of Amsterdam?

Doug Henderson: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, who has reminded me of the divisions that were apparent in the Conservative party three years ago on this very subject. I do not think that the position has changed; if anything, the divisions have become deeper and Conservative Members connect less to the real issues.
	I come back to my earlier point: even if there is a proposal that is clearly in Britain's interest, the hon. Gentleman is against any extension of QMV, even if it wipes out an industry in Britain or causes enormous environmental damage to part of our country. He is prepared to lay waste to industry and the environment in defence of his political and ideological position. He is entitled to adopt that position, but the public have a right to know exactly where he and some of his hon. Friends are coming from.
	Someone said to me, "The Conservative party is finished if it cannot persuade parts of the financial services industry that it is in their interest to have a Conservative Government in Britain." There is clear evidence of that in some of the attitudes that the Conservative party has struck on QMV, and it is apparent to any operator in the City of London or any British operator elsewhere in the EU or in other parts of Britain.
	If a position makes sense and is adopted by consensus in the EU, one country should not be able to block negotiations with other major players in the financial services industry, probably in the United States or the far east. That is tantamount to destroying the Single European Act as it relates to financial services. With the enlargement of the European Union, all sorts of prospects appear on the horizon. Surely one country should not be able to block a sensible proposal.
	When EU negotiators enter into talks with other countries on financial services, they should have a clear mandate that has been agreed, after discussion, by QMV. If we adopted the position advanced from the Conservative Front Bench, such negotiations would not take place at all, as there is every likelihood that the proposal would be vetoed by one country that did not stand to gain as much as the others or that would perhaps lose a little. That would undermine the operation of the Single European Act in respect of financial services.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Doug Henderson: I am happy to give way to the successor to my pair.

Mark Francois: The ostrich is about to counter-attack. The hon. Gentleman argues that if any matter is subject to QMV, negotiations may lead to some agreement, but that if a veto is retained there may never be agreement. Is it not an odd argument that we cannot be involved in negotiations unless QMV operates? Surely we can be involved in negotiations, and if there is a proposal to which we object, we can use our veto, although most of the time we may not choose to do that. His argument is daft.

Doug Henderson: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that the financial services industry in the EU will understand my argument. We will not even get to the starting gate for negotiations with the Americans or the Japanese unless we can firm up a European position. If Latvia or Germany—any country, regardless of size—did not support a particular piece of trade liberalisation, there would be no negotiation whatever. That is the point that I have been trying to establish.

Mark Hendrick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Doug Henderson: I do not want to hog the field.

Mark Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he consider, as I do, that the view of the Conservative party is extremely unpatriotic? Under the Conservative Government, markets in this country were liberalised and opened to companies from other countries. We are considering a measure that would push through the liberalisation of financial services across Europe. British banks and financial institutions are vulnerable to those in other countries, but because of the intransigence of one or two member states we cannot push through agreement to ensure that British companies can acquire French or German companies, particularly banks and insurance companies. Is it not unpatriotic of the Opposition to block the mechanisms that would allow that?

Doug Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. What matters is not what I think, but what the electorate think. The electorate made their judgment in 1997 and in the last general election about which political party was patriotic.

Graham Brady: rose—

Doug Henderson: I have been more generous than others were towards me when I tried to intervene. I shall see how we go on the next point, then I may be tempted to give way again.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a silly and jingoistic point when he said that if the veto was removed in respect of the rules and tasks of the structural and cohesion funds, some of our regions could lose out. That is a misunderstanding of how the structural and cohesion fund industry works. We are not the main recipients, and that will remain the case, quite fairly, because others need more help than we do. Higher aggregate demand in the economies of those other countries encourages our exporters, so it is in our long-term trading interests for countries in the eastern part of the European Union to develop their economies.
	The motivating force for establishing QMV in respect of such funding was the negotiating attitude adopted by the Iberian countries and Greece. They said, "Unless we get our way on structural and cohesion funds, everything else will be disrupted, not only in this negotiation, but in others, whether in Council meetings or in relation to particular treaties." I have been a negotiator in my time, so I know that that card can be played sometimes, but not for ever. Anybody who plays it for too long will be shut out and left without influence.
	If one wants to be part of the building of a European ideal and the European economic and political process, one must make a positive contribution. The Iberian countries have understood that, which is why they have been tempted to accept a QMV decision, even though changes are occurring and they will not continue to be the main recipients of such funds. Once enlargement occurs, for the foreseeable future, other countries will receive a substantial part of the funding. The hon. Member for West Suffolk should reconsider the matter before he makes another point about it.

Richard Spring: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Doug Henderson: I do not see why I should, but I shall be more generous to the hon. Gentleman than he was to me.

Richard Spring: I apologise if I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will agree that I gave way a great deal to many other Labour Members.
	The hon. Gentleman may have slightly misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. We are calling for openness in the Government's approach so that the facts can be established. The Library has concluded that, on all available evidence, a significant number of areas in the United Kingdom that currently have objective 1 status would lose out. We should know what the Government's view is, and that is the basis of our proposal. It has nothing to do with jingoism; we merely seek some openness and honesty from the Government for a change.

Doug Henderson: The precise terms that have been used refer to that aim, but the hon. Gentleman raised this issue: some British areas might lose if the veto is removed. We cannot continue to proceed on that basis. If we want a sensible system to disburse social funding, there must be some fairness and an understanding that fairness must be taken into account. One has to make progress, but one cannot do so if all participants veto every little bit that they do not like. Enlargement would not happen if that attitude prevailed, and anyone who has ever been at such negotiations or acted on behalf of potential recipients in their constituencies knows that that is so. There must be give and take on all such issues.
	The hon. Gentleman also suggested that small countries would be discriminated against if QMV were extended, but I do not think that that is correct. If small countries are discriminated against by QMV, discrimination must already be occurring under the Single European Act before extension. He suggested that abolition of the veto means that small countries will be discriminated against. That is not how it works. People in the European Union with common interests put together a proposition, whether it is an environmental one from the Scandinavian countries or an industrial one from the French and British. They then try to persuade other countries to accept it. There are big and small countries that have an interest and take part, but others say that the matter does not affect them and that they will flow with the decision that is reached. The idea that this extension discriminates against smaller countries while the 42 extensions to which the Conservative Government agreed do not is silly. The hon. Member for West Suffolk has been coaxed into adopting that stance because of his position.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between different sorts of treaties without paying heed to their contents. The Single European Act is primarily about increasing trading opportunities and competition. The Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties are primarily about European government. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who has just walked in, again displays his complete ignorance of the treaties' contents by shaking his head. I am glad that the Minister for Europe understands those matters.
	Qualified majority voting makes a substantial difference in the context of the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties. That is one of the main reasons why the Irish people voted against the Nice treaty, which is about QMV and larger states bulldozing smaller ones.

Doug Henderson: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary should know about the treaty because he was well coached in the past. I am confident that he knows a lot more about it than me.
	I do not accept the point of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The Single European Act provided for extensions of QMV and dealt with economic issues such as building a single market. The Amsterdam, Maastricht and Nice treaties cover some similar issues. Financial services negotiations with third parties are a matter of single market economics. Some aspects of the treaties did not cover economics, but that is the case with all treaties. I understand the point that he tried to make, but I do not accept that it is empirically correct.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Doug Henderson: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already; I should give somebody else a chance.

Joyce Quin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Doug Henderson: I cannot resist giving way to my right hon. Friend.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) pointed out that he voted for the Single European Act. Perhaps he will not mind my reminding hon. Members that during the debate on that measure, he said that the dangers of QMV were exaggerated.

Doug Henderson: I am always glad to give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am especially glad this afternoon. She made an important point.
	If enlargement is to happen, the Nice treaty must be adopted. Those who have examined it know that without QMV, there is no treaty. As we move towards enlargement, QMV is essential for all the reasons that have been given in the debate.
	The treaty will not be the end of extending QMV, but I believe that many existing provisions will be used more often. They will form the bulk of QMV in future. However, some modification and development will be required and further proposals will be made. I am not ashamed to say that, and I do not hide from it. As information technology and environmental issues develop, the Community may believe that decisions should be made through majority voting so that no individual country has a veto.

Ian Paisley: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does not it appear on the surface that majority voting favours the larger nations, especially Germany?

Doug Henderson: No. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that that is the case. The large nations such as France, Germany and Britain might say, "We must be able to block a proposal under qualified majority voting if we feel it is against our collective interest and the European Union's interest." However, that situation hardly ever arises; indeed, I do not know whether it has ever arisen. I need to check the history books.
	More normally, countries with a common interest ask the Commission to initiate a proposal or to respond to a proposal from the Commission. They then build support for their case, and if they do not get it, they usually back off and have another go, review, modify or whatever. If they get the support that they need, they try to reach unanimity before QMV is raised. However, if it proves difficult to establish unanimity, one member state will rely on QMV. Member states will try to build support among small and large countries. I do not think that small countries are discriminated against.
	Proposals such as the measure to review the rules on the tasks of the structural and cohesion funds are an important development for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I can foresee a situation in which there could be quite a ganging-up against the Republic and Northern Ireland—because they have both been heavy recipients of funding in the past—to support a particular distribution of structural funds elsewhere. If there were a veto, it might mean that there would be no agreement, or that the UK and Ireland had to give way to protect their position. With QMV, there will be a more balanced approach in which a largish group of nations will make decisions on the distribution of structural funds. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will gain from that process.
	I have made the points that I wanted to make, and I shall leave it to others to speak further.

Menzies Campbell: The speech by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was pretty brave stuff. He was reflecting on what we were invited to understand was his party's clear and unequivocal position. However, any reference to the views of that apostate, as we might describe him, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is currently a candidate for the leadership of the official Opposition, was absent from any part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude towards the Nice treaty is, I fear, a long way away from that expressed on behalf of the official Opposition by the hon. Member for West Suffolk—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not the only one of whom that is true. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made it clear last week in a most illuminating article in the newspaper of record, The Times, why he was supporting the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, and evinced a certain amount of embarrassment about the arguments that he had had to advance about the Nice treaty during the election campaign.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk frequently said how disappointed he was, and I confess that I, too, am pretty disappointed, that we have not heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—or from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), because he was the Whip charged with the responsibility of taking the legislation on the Maastricht treaty through the House of Commons. That shows that gratitude rarely lasts long in politics. All the way through that process, the Liberal Democrats supported the then Government, assisting them in getting the legislation on the Maastricht treaty on to the statute book. There were no accusations at that time from the Conservatives that the Liberal Democrats were overly committed to European integration. Indeed, they were happy to exploit our commitment towards Europe.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk has made a brave statement of the case that he would like the Opposition to put forward, but in truth it is a case sustained neither by history nor by contemporary events in his party.

Richard Spring: Bearing in mind the comments of many Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidates in the recent general election, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that there is any unanimity of view among Liberal Democrats. There certainly is not. The issue of how we approach our relationship with the European Union produces different views and attitudes right across the political spectrum, and right across the breadth of the political parties in this country. There is nothing new about that.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. A little while ago he was accusing the Liberal Democrats of being hell-bent on further integration. Now he says that we are split on the topic. If we are split on the topic, we can hardly be hell-bent on it.

John Bercow: rose—

John Redwood: rose—

Menzies Campbell: I do not propose to give way at the moment.

William Cash: The Liberal Democrats will be smashed to atoms by going in different directions.

Menzies Campbell: If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to try to push me in a different direction, I would be pretty confident that I could hold my own course.

John Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman at the moment, although I may do in due course.
	What I find difficult to understand in the attitude of the official Opposition, as evidenced by the amendment, is their argument that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any circumstances, because it is time to bring powers back from Brussels to domestic Parliaments. I could understand it if they proposed to approach the issue of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case, merit-by-merit basis, and said that when they examined the treaty of Nice and the extensions of QMV therein, they objected to one, three, five, six, seven or any other particular number of the extensions
	I thought that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) put the question very clearly indeed. On matters such as the liberalisation of financial services and transport, how can it possibly be in the interests of the United Kingdom to oppose qualified majority voting when our economy would benefit and our interests would be served? Arguing against a particular provision on the ground that it does not serve those interests seems entirely logical, but I do not find it easy to understand the necessity to argue against qualified majority voting in all circumstances, even when it is demonstrably in the interests of the people whom we represent.

Mark Francois: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: Not for the moment.
	What lies behind that is the suggestion that with qualified majority voting, the interests of the United Kingdom are irreparably damaged on a regular basis. The fact is that in the past two years Britain has been outvoted in the Council of Ministers on only five occasions, while in the same period Germany was outvoted 20 times and France eight times. Those statistics do not suggest that the rest of Europe is somehow ganging up on us and damaging our significant domestic interests so much that we cannot consider the extension of qualified majority voting in future on a case-by-case basis.

John Redwood: I do not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to understand my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who speaks for the official Opposition with great clarity. He put forward the proposition that we do not wish more powers to pass to Brussels. That was agreed by every Conservative Member present—a goodly number of us—because we believe very strongly in that case. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that the United Kingdom has not been outvoted recently because we have such a craven Government, who never stand up for the British national interest because they do not want to test the system, as they know that they would lose the vote?

Menzies Campbell: There may be still be time for another leadership candidate, Sir Alan.
	The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view that the Government are craven. I think that they have demonstrated timidity over Europe, and that the case for a single European currency should have been argued with much more vehemence than it has been so far. However, the position that the Opposition seek to adopt on qualified majority voting simply does not stand up to any logical scrutiny.
	Reference has already been made to the Single European Act, and I have referred to Maastricht. It is interesting to consider the attitude of the Government of the day—a Conservative Government—to some of these issues. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is not present. I understand that he has other responsibilities, but it is notable that when talking about the process of signing up for the Maastricht treaty, he said that
	"qualified majority voting has enabled us to get some liberalising measures through against protectionist resistance by some of our partners."—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]
	I cannot think of a better way of encapsulating the value of qualified majority voting. It allows us to seek, so far as we can, and as quickly as we can, the kind of liberal Europe that is in our interests, and enables us to overcome protectionist resistance from those who may believe that they have some special interest that must be defended to the death by the exercise of a veto. If we have an enlarged European Union, which we all apparently want, qualified majority voting will be necessary to ensure that it functions, and that it does so in a way that accords with our domestic interests.

John Bercow: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a clear conceptual difference between the acceptance of qualified majority voting for the purpose of creating or bolstering a single market and dismantling barriers, and for the adoption of policies that interfere with the autonomy of nation states in relation to the labour market? The two are radically different.

Menzies Campbell: I would accept that the hon. Gentleman's argument had some force if he were not supporting shadow Ministers who say that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any circumstances, and that a line must be drawn in the sand. If there are circumstances in which it can be shown that it is in our interest to cross that line, I cannot understand why it is necessary to maintain a blanket ban on any extension.
	It is perfectly reasonable to have an argument, as we did on Second Reading, about whether it is appropriate to have QMV with regard to discrimination, but I part company with the Conservative party, and in particular with its Front Benchers, over the idea that we should take a blanket approach and not have an argument on the merits.

William Cash: As on the programme motion, I find that I am in agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although on a limited point. Amendment No. 233 deals with the incredibly important question of child abduction. Under the treaty—at the specific behest of Germany and Austria, as I understand it—family law is subjected to unanimity. There are certain cases that lead me to believe that in this particular instance, qualified majority voting is the only way of breaking the stranglehold, and that is why I tabled that amendment.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but he will forgive me if I ask why he did not make it to the hon. Member for West Suffolk, because it drives a horse and cart through the position adopted by the official Opposition.
	Qualified majority voting is now extended to 31 articles, over half of which refer to technical portions of the treaty, dealing with appointments, rules of procedure and the management of the European Parliament and European committees and courts. A further four of the articles refer to areas that Britain has opted out of. Of the remaining 10, the extensions are in such areas as anti-discrimination practice, support for industry and environmental measures. Exercising my best judgment, I cannot believe that those are matters of such fundamental constitutional importance that the United Kingdom's interests can be properly regulated only if we maintain our veto over them. That is why I cannot support the amendment.

Andrew Miller: I am following the theme started by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) was a little cruel to suggest that the Opposition were being hypocritical. I think that they are simply so confused that they are facing several ways at the same time. That seems to be the case with everything on which we have to deal with the official Opposition in this House.
	I had the pleasure of being in Nice the week before the treaty negotiations, speaking at a conference involving a wide range of groups from the applicant countries. The only negative point is that to get to Nice, I would certainly advise hon. Members never to fly Sabena, which seems to leave things around Europe, including my luggage.
	Interesting points were raised at the meeting by a number of the smaller countries, which were represented by people from outside the main political arena, and by people representing businesses and aspects of industry in their respective nations. They did not see how it would be possible to make the new Europe work effectively without some change in the voting patterns,
	There was some merit in the earlier arguments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), but that slipped away. As I understood him, he argued that, as a matter of principle, no extension of QMV could make sense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said, it is blindingly obvious that within the future evolution of the European institutions, in some circumstances it will be easily agreed that there are matters to which it would be beneficial to extend QMV.
	I am totally confused by the Opposition position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said, they rely on the 1997 manifesto rejection of any extension of QMV. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Government did a bad job in Nice, but did not go on to explain the logic by which, on a case-by-case basis, the extension of QMV was a bad thing. If there is an ideological principle I have yet to hear it. If the case is based simply on dogma, perhaps nothing has changed in that wing of the Conservative party, as represented by Mrs. Thatcher all those years ago. [Hon. Members: "Who?"] Conservative Members are trying to erase their memories. If Mrs. Thatcher is being airbrushed out, the Conservative party really is moving to the right.
	Last week I referred to earlier negotiations involving Peter Carrington and Ian Gilmour, and to their conflicts with the then Prime Minister. The dogma has now reached a point of total and utter absurdity. Now the official argument seems to be that, as a matter of principle, QMV is a bad thing. That is all we have heard from the official Opposition.
	The Opposition have not recognised that in Nice the British Government insisted that certain issues should be decided by unanimity. Britain has, of course, a veto over such issues as taxation, social security, border controls, defence, the financing of the EU and future changes to treaties. That is a good, solid, principled position because in all those areas no new rules can be introduced unless the British Government agree.
	Let us start with what the Nice treaty actually says. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk had presented to the House a logical reason why the Government should not have given ground on any of the articles in the Nice treaty, perhaps the House would listen more readily to the Conservatives.

Richard Spring: I did.

Andrew Miller: Frankly, I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. He started by saying that he was opposed to the extension of QMV as a matter of principle.

John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the rejection of qualified majority voting in respect of taxation, by this Government as by the Conservative Government, is not of itself a guarantee of the retention of sovereignty in relation to tax matters? That is transparently obvious to most observers. As proof of that point, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Paymaster General has voluntarily chucked away no fewer than 85 tax advantages that this country enjoyed, simply to satisfy the European Union.

Andrew Miller: We could get into a deep philosophical argument about definitions of sovereignty here. Perhaps it is time that the nation became engaged in such a debate and we moved away from some of the trivial nonsense that the Conservative party seeks to portray as definitions of sovereignty. The hon. Gentleman and I will, I am sure, agree on one thing: Britain still has a veto over taxation.

John Bercow: That does not get us very far.

Andrew Miller: If we can also agree on the day of the week, that will be two things we can agree on.
	The Government have spelled out the key areas on which they have not given ground, and it would be helpful to hear in detail—point by point—from the Opposition their reasons why the Government should not have given ground on the other measures. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned 31 articles that comprised 35 measures. The Opposition therefore have many opportunities to find a flaw in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. However, that will be difficult because 11 of the measures deal with the streamlining of appointments and procedures, four deal with international negotiations and agreements, to give Europe a stronger voice in the world, and six deal with improvements in the effectiveness of EU spending—perhaps the Opposition are worried about those. A further five will help business to complete the single market, and three more will help individuals. All the measures have specific phrases associated with them in the treaty and the supplementary text. Perhaps if the official Opposition could leave dogma behind and deal with the principles, the nation would be better served by them.
	In conclusion—

John Bercow: Yes.

Andrew Miller: I see that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about something else.
	In conclusion, I return to the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. He said that in some sectors—he cited the example of information technology—we may have to reach agreements with our European partners. Those agreements would be for the benefit of Europe's competitiveness, as they would enable us to move faster than, for example, the Asiatic countries or north America.
	Although we have a broad idea of what will happen to the IT industry over the next few years, none of us can predict its future exactly, and we cannot envisage what its long-term structure will be. As Europe may have to move faster than its competitors to maintain its edge over them, it would be absurd for a Government not to leave the door open to the possible extension of QMV.
	Yet the Opposition appear to believe that, as a matter of principle and irrespective of what might happen in the future, their 1997 gospel that there should be no extension of QMV must be adhered to. That is an absurd position, and it cannot be logically sustained. It merely typifies the naive view of a very split Opposition.

William Cash: Amendment No. 1 focuses on qualified majority voting, which covers a series of articles. That puts me in a quandary, as each of those articles merits discussion on its own account. QMV has two aspects. On the one hand, there is the problem of its practical application, which requires changes to domestic British legislation; on the other, there is a matter of principle.
	As I pointed out in my interventions on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), QMV raises a matter of principle with a difference. I certainly voted for the Single European Act, and Britain adopted QMV on a variety of matters when it joined the European Community in 1972.
	There are a number of amendments to which I need to speak, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal with them all in this speech. I shall be as brief as possible, but I do not want to jump around from one subject to another. I shall try to deal with the amendments in the order in which they have been selected for debate.
	I shall begin with the general point that debates such as this are hugely important to people outside the House. It is the duty of hon. Members to do their best to make them intelligible, so we must be careful to distinguish the wood from the trees.
	In that connection, I am reminded of the White Paper published in 1971, which clearly stated that Britain would retain the veto, because to relinquish it would damage our national interest. The White Paper went further, stating that relinquishing the veto would damage the very fabric of the European Community.
	The point being made in that White Paper was simple. It was that the members of a harmonious community do not railroad and bulldoze each other by the use of qualified majority voting. They allow discussion to take place and understandings to develop; they do not push people up against a wall and say, "We will shoot you with qualified majority voting if you don't agree." That is particularly relevant when it comes to government.
	There is a distinction between arriving at a degree of understanding and compromise and changes in legal processes in an arena such as the European Union in which there is a degree of co-operation, with which I agree. My party is conscious of the advantages that can come from greater co-operation—as am I—but not at the price of giving up our own government. That is the key point. Therefore, the Single European Act is, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, distinguishable from the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and now Nice, because those are, with qualifications, primarily to do with the creation of a European Government.
	The Irish vote has a lot to do with this. The application of qualified majority voting in relation to the enhancement of the powers of the larger states caused great concern in Ireland. My travels with the Select Committee on European Scrutiny around eastern and central Europe have shown that there is deep concern there as well. Those countries do not make too much noise about it because they see certain advantages in being in a European union. Even so, they hope that the Government and the Opposition—or the unofficial Opposition, if I can put it like that—will help them to maintain their democracy, acquired at the "springtime of nations". That is an important message for the Government.
	The European Union will not survive if it creates tensions as a result of qualified majority voting, which alienates the populations of the countries concerned. It is primarily devoted to getting through whatever technocratic decisions may be taken by the lego-wonks of the European Commission and the politico-wonks that exist in some parts of the European elite.
	The extension of the use of qualified majority voting, which reduces the need for unanimity and the value of the national veto, has had a serious detrimental effect on the confidence that member states have in the European Union, full stop.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the converse of what he has just described? For example, Jean-Luc Dehaene was rejected because of the use of the veto and Jacques Santer eventually became head of the European Commission. We found that the Commission was badly managed and had to persuade the College of Commissioners to resign. In terms of quality, the appointment of President Santer was, in effect, the lowest common denominator rather than the highest common factor.

William Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that instance. It was Mr. Jens-Peter Bonde and the Eurosceptics who led the campaign to get rid of the Commission, despite the fact that the MEPs in the Labour party and my own claimed rather more influence over what happened. The bottom line is that the Commissioners went because they were no good. The tragedy is that they were reappointed.
	The blocking minority is in jeopardy under these arrangements, which is detrimental to the interests of the harmonious working of the European Union.

Menzies Campbell: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his intervention during my speech and pick up the theme of what he has just said? Am I right to understand that he believes that there are circumstances in which qualified majority voting is essential? If so, on what principles does he base his view? He gave an illustration with regard to the abduction of children, but perhaps he could go a little further and tell us the principle upon which he holds that view.

William Cash: I shall indeed. The principle is that the whole of the European Union needs to be renegotiated. If we reached a point at which we had to reduce the functions of the EU and that was done properly and we continued to accept the principle of political co-operation—as we should—we could get down to the business of deciding the arenas within which it should apply. We do not have the time or the disposition to go into that at present, although I tabled a new clause on the subject that was not called, much to my chagrin—to use a French expression. However, everything has grown like Topsy and the bottom line is that we developed qualified majority voting on a continuous escalator with no discrimination.
	My principle is that we should go back to the drawing board: save Europe, as Edmund Burke once suggested about the depredations of the French revolution, and get the thing right. That is the principle on which we should operate. It is in the interests of democratic nation states not only that they should have their say but that they should not be bulldozed by this monumental leviathan.

Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a possible logical consequence of his argument would be a constitution for Europe that laid down the very principles that he describes?

William Cash: I also tabled a new clause on that subject, which I regret was not selected. I see the twinkle in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's eye. The irony is that, under the arrangements leading up to 2004, the constitution that would emerge by then would produce an epicentre—thanks to the acquis communautaire, the existing legal framework and the crazy idea that there will be enhanced co-operation in eight member states even if the total number of member states rises to 27. There will be a core or a centre of gravity that will take that European constitution along a line, together with QMV and enhanced co-operation and the so-called flexibility that goes with it. That, too, is a wood-for-the-trees point because the line will go in only one direction. I therefore dispute the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition, because I take the contrary view about a constitution that would work properly and that I would consider safe or desirable for the EU. That is the key point.

Richard Shepherd: Hooray!

William Cash: I shall try to deal briefly with the question of Britain's influence. Much has been made of that by Ministers and by the Secretary of State in his Second Reading speech. As I pointed out in the Select Committee during my cross-examination of the former Minister for Europe, Britain's influence is not only on the wane, it is being fundamentally reduced as more vetoes are abolished by the Council of Ministers.
	At Nice, about 43 vetoes were lost—the exact number depends on how the tally is made. In the 1971 White Paper, when the House was so badly misled, such matters were described as imperilling the fabric of the Community. That is happening at present. The Community is in peril because of those mistakes. Only 19 vetoes were lost at Amsterdam. They were largely negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, although I was not enthusiastic about that, and inherited by the Labour Government. I wrote a blue paper—a 25-page hatchet job—on that.
	Forty-one vetoes were lost at Maastricht. In conjunction with many of my hon. Friends, I opposed that. Many of those hon. Friends are on the Opposition Benches at present. Some hon. Members who have recently arrived on these Benches would most emphatically have been with us during those great and heady days when we held the Government to ransom, fighting for the interests not only of the United Kingdom but also of Europe as a whole.
	Thirty-seven vetoes went in the Single European Act—I have dealt with that—and 38 went in the treaty of Rome.
	Although those are demonstrations of the emasculation of our democracy, the standard justification for the proposed massive extension of QMV at the Nice intergovernmental conference is that the veto would
	"imperil the single market in an enlarged European Union".
	So the official line from the EU is that these 43 vetoes would somehow prevent enlargement or lead the Union to grind to a halt.
	It is argued that the single market has come to be understood, quite conveniently from the Brussels perspective, as including virtually every aspect of European Union business. The removal of barriers to trade and obstacles to the free movement of people has become a convenient excuse to centralise more and more powers at the EU level. That is where the concept of subsidiarity is upturned.
	As I said at the time of the Maastricht treaty in 1990, the first time that I heard the word "subsidiarity" I realised, having been brought up by the Jesuits and recognising it as a concept that comes from Catholic theology, that the concept of subsidiarity was a con trick. It is based on the assumption that there will be a hierarchy of norms—a hierarchy of government—and in jurisprudence that is perfectly well understood. The only problem is that one should not apply religious theological concepts to matters of politics. I think that that is all I need to say on that.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend and I agree entirely about the risible concept of subsidiarity, but would he care to recall the verdict of the celebrated Lord Mackenzie-Stuart on the subject of subsidiarity, for was it not that great man who described subsidiarity as
	"a prime example of gobbledegook"
	and said that those who regarded it as a constitutional safeguard were showing
	"great optimism"?

William Cash: Yes indeed, and after he had been challenged he had the good sense to repeat it—in one of the great Hamlyn lectures, I believe. I very much appreciate that intervention. It is a reminder that some very eminent jurists know what rubbish subsidiarity is. It is not just rubbish as a concept; its practical application causes changes in domestic law that are bad for the people who must live under it. That is the key point.
	I return to the subject of the effects of the new voting system. I know that there are those who disagree with me in this respect, but I have made my case in very many publications and articles and no one has taken issue with me about it. It would be easy to try to do so and I wish that people would. However, I simply make my proposition, which is that the elite of Germany has increased its influence. It is the unspoken word; I cannot imagine why. One need not be at loggerheads with everyone to point out the truth or the facts. It is a fact and, to my mind, not standing up to it, not explaining it and not dealing with it is simply walking away from reality.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: No; I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman did himself no good with his previous intervention, so I will not allow him this one.
	The new voting system, which is called double majority voting, was introduced in the Nice treaty and it will especially benefit the German Government. First, it is useful to recall how the qualified majority voting system worked until Nice. A decision required a 71.26 per cent. share of the vote to be approved: 62 of 87 votes in the Council of Ministers. That meant that the votes of countries accounting for 58.16 per cent. of the EU's population would constitute a majority.
	Following Nice, the new procedures for QMV are very much more complex. Whenever a decision goes to QMV in the Council of Ministers, a country can demand—the Minister knows it—that double majority voting be used. Double majority voting requires two conditions to be met for a decision to be adopted.
	First, in a 27-member EU, a proposal must gather 258 of 345 votes, or 74.78 per cent. of the votes in the Council of Ministers. In other words, a significantly higher threshold is required, making it easier to block a proposal, although it would be harder for existing member states to block it as their share of the vote would be lower.
	Secondly, the proposal must be backed by countries representing 62 per cent. of the EU population—the so-called population safeguard. But thanks to that second clause, the so-called safeguard, Germany and two other large countries, such as France or Italy, will be able to block anything that they do not like, whereas Britain will need more than two other countries to vote with it to oppose undesirable decisions from its point of view.
	The blocking minority is 88 votes in the Council, which means that Germany would not have been able to block decisions so easily in the absence of the population requirement. Therefore, many EU observers are calling Chancellor Schroeder the victor of Nice. It was all over the papers at the time and it was the German papers that were saying it. Following Nice, Germany will start to lose its traditional deference to the EU. As I pointed out on Second Reading, a fundamental geopolitical shift in the balance of power in Europe is taking place, but it is being done through lego-political power play.

Richard Shepherd: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Many across the country—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember to address the Chair.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is recognised as one of the greatest authorities, in the legal sense, of the understanding of these treaties and constitutions developed through the European Union—he probably has greater understanding than revealed in anything that the Foreign Office has produced. The burden of my hon. Friend's argument is that the transference by the proposed limitation on the veto is such that it changes the constitutional order within Europe. Therefore, many of my constituents are asking why the Danes do not require a referendum in this instance. They ask me whether it is because the corruption of the Danish constitution is now so great that this further transference of power to the Community or the European Union is such that the Danes no longer have the scope for a referendum on such important constitutional issues.

William Cash: My hon. Friend raises an important point, again on the matter relating to a referendum and its impact on qualified majority voting, because the referendum is the safeguard for the electorate where the elite, through qualified majority voting, has been taking decisions that, as a result of the scrutiny processes throughout the European Union, are nothing less than a farce.
	The bottom line is that the Irish, with their tremendous good sense, voted against the elite, as did the Danes in their referendum on the euro, when every single radio and television programme and newspaper was against them. The people know best, and if I may say so, as a Tory, it follows that great dictum of either Lord Randolph Churchill or Disraeli: "Trust the people." I put more trust in the people than I do in the House or the Council of Ministers. The plain fact is that it is for the people to take that decision, and they need to be properly informed about it.

Richard Shepherd: Have the Danish given away, as a result of a previous referendum, the right to take a decision on this treaty? Why is there not a referendum in Denmark on this treaty?

William Cash: There certainly should be. The answer to that question is that the Government, the elite, in Denmark are not prepared to hold another referendum, just as, for example, there is a reluctance—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is being led astray by his hon. Friend.

William Cash: There are many roads to the treaty of Nice, and my hon. Friend suggests one that I shall have to avoid, just for the moment. We shall have ample opportunity to consider it later.
	Basically, my main proposition is that the smaller states will lose out, and the effect will be that they will be bulldozed, which is one of the reasons why they are so concerned. Indeed, their voting shares will decrease even in the absence of enlargement, which is one of the main reasons that Ireland voted against the treaty of Nice.

Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman take the time to mention the number of Members of the European Parliament, which will be affected by the change? Is he aware that, given the drastic cut in the number of Members for the south of Ireland, Northern Ireland, which has three Members, will not retain that number in future? Indeed, Northern Ireland might not even have one Member in the new Parliament.

William Cash: I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, but I must not be diverted down that path either. Suffice it to say that there has been a substantial change in the number of MEPs, and—surprise, surprise—it turns out that Germany has the most, although some may say that that it because of its population. That is all part of the real problem. Some may dispute this, but those countries dependent on Germany economically or politically, or in coalition with it—in the European Parliament, with the new co-decision procedure, or whatever—will vote with it, so we shall have a greater Germany, and in the words of Thomas Mann, will it be a European Germany, or a German Europe? I am confident, but concerned that it will be a German Europe. We need to face those questions in a responsible and, I hope, sensible and friendly manner, but we must point out that we do not like such things and we will not have them. That is my message on that key point.
	It has been said that QMV will lead to a two-speed Europe. I wrote a paper for the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, at the time of the Maastricht treaty. I shall not repeat any part of that paper, other than to say that it was published in 1993, in the appendix to a book called, "Visions of Europe", in which I gave my reasons for objecting to QMV. I said that the movement toward majority voting and a two-speed Europe would put us on the sidelines, whereas that was what we were accused of doing.
	When we deal with the clauses relating to enhanced co-operation, I shall have a good deal more to say about the relationship between that and majority voting because that, in itself, creates an extremely deep black hole. As I said on Second Reading, those who have advocated variable geometry have made a very profound strategic mistake—in fact, a strategic mistake of such enormous proportions that it is incapable of being described. That monumental mistake in foreign policy is based on the idea that, if words such as "flexibility" and "subsidiarity" are used, the proposal means what it appears to say. "Through the Looking-Glass" and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" have a lot to say about such things.

Sylvia Heal: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to what will be a debate on a subsequent date.

William Cash: It is a seamless treaty, and I can assure you, Mrs. Heal, that in this context enhanced co-operation cannot be treated separately. The Clerk of Public Bills, to whom I am not supposed to refer, knows well enough that QMV and enhanced co-operation go hand in hand. If I have to try to explain the inner workings and the entrails of the treaty, it is difficult, given the fact that we started out with the dilemma that I described at the beginning of my remarks, to separate the vast number of articles dealt with under amendment No. 1 and its incidental application to individual parts of the treaty as we proceed. If it were possible to disentangle this Heath Robinson business and produce a workable and sensible treaty, I wish we could do so. The problem is that the proposal has been deliberately devised as a mechanism for unbelievable complexity, which is completely beyond the man in the street, but thank God people see through it when they vote.

Gisela Stuart: As I have a simple mind, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify something for me. He says that we are about to create a European Union dominated by a greater Germany, which was the great victor of Nice, but Germany's population is 82 million and its new vote is 29—the same as that of the United Kingdom, France and Italy. Earlier on, if I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he accepted that QMV was needed on certain occasions, and that smaller countries need to be equally represented. I should be grateful if he could tell me what weighting he would think it fair to apply. Could he explain why a country of 82 million people, which now has the same number of votes as a country with 57 million, is still seen as the victor? I simply do not understand the logical sequence of his argument.

William Cash: That is simple—the treaties and the concept of political union are hopelessly illogical. The problem is that the anomalies that arise cannot be got rid of without having total political union, which is the objective. The problem is a simple one for me; I simply say that we must renegotiate the treaties and take them back at least to the Single European Act, so that we do not go down the route of political union. Yes, Germany has certainly increased in power. The day that the Berlin wall came down—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now wandering very wide of the amendment.

William Cash: I am afraid that I have been diverted by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), which is difficult to resist.
	Having said that, I shall now speak to amendment No. 233, which I tabled, and which deals with child abduction. I am jumping into that amendment, but I want to deal with other amendments, and I shall do so as quickly as I possibly can. Child abduction is a horrifying business, so much so that, notwithstanding the fact that I wish to see the EU framework renegotiated, it warrants the application of QMV to that aspect of family law that deals with it.
	Many hon. Members will know that the wife of our ambassador to the United States, Lady Meyer, has children who were taken from her by her husband. They have not been returned to her, primarily because the German courts will not allow it. Indeed, the problem seems to be peculiar to the German jurisdiction. I have not the time to go into every detail, but Germany and Austria are primarily involved because their laws effectively prohibit the return of children who have been abducted by their natural parents in the EU.
	The number of cases of abduction has increased every year. According to the Belgian Ministry of Justice, 221 children were abducted from Belgium in 1998, and 562 in 2000. In France, a fourfold increase in abductions was recorded between 1997 and today. That is pretty horrendous stuff. As far as I am aware, none of the parents—who are mostly American and French, but some are British—has been able to regain access to their children if they are held in Germany. I shall send the Minister details of two particularly difficult cases.
	In one case, the gentleman concerned has managed to see his children for only a few hours since he finally traced them seven years ago. In another, an Australian lady is unable to get her daughter back from Germany although the German father died last October. She has seen her for only a few hours in the presence of the social services youth authority, the Jugendamnt, and the grandparents are suing for custody.
	A Franco-American father, Maurice Elfeke, recently went to Germany when he heard that his children's name was going to be changed without his consent. They were abducted two years ago and since then he has had no contact whatsoever. He was arrested last week and put in jail because he sprayed his mother-in-law's garden with black paint. He is now on hunger strike in jail and several parents will meet in Berlin on 14 July for a hunger strike demonstration. Lady Meyer saw her sons for 10 minutes outside a court room in 2000, has no access rights and has managed to see them for 25 hours in total.
	A Franco-German commission has been established, but it has produced no results. A US-German Commission was established last year at the behest of President Clinton. The proposed reforms have been backed by Hillary Clinton and, most recently, Colin Powell. Although the initiatives have not resolved a single case, the main problem is the lack of enforcement of orders in Germany, Austria and, I believe, Sweden.
	The French have produced proposals for the recognition and enforcement of actions and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children has been set up to protect children. The problem is serious. The ICMEC is preparing a written paper, which I can supply to the Minister, and in early September the European Commission will present the draft regulation. The main problem is that although justice and home affairs have moved to the first pillar, unanimity is still required in family law. We have the European Court of Justice and I hope that the Committee will understand why, in such exceptional circumstances, it is essential to change the law in the interests of those children and their parents. The Prime Minister's wife is also deeply engaged in the problem. She understands it and gives full support to those who advocate change.
	This is not the first time that I have taken a slightly unusual view. As a realist, I put the interests of those children and their parents ahead of any other concerns. It might be best to change The Hague convention. Failing that, we need to change the qualified majority vote. I intend to press the amendment to a vote. I want to know what the Government are going to do about those children and their parents. There is enough time before we finish our deliberations on Wednesday for the Minister to give my concerns careful consideration.

Andrew Miller: I am listening carefully and it seems that the hon. Gentleman's argument underlines what I said about it being wrong to rule out in principle an extension of QMV in the circumstances. Although we are at different ends of the telescope in terms of the development of the EU, he makes a powerful case on this subject.

William Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the temperate way in which he phrased his intervention. I object to QMV in many arenas for the reasons that I gave. We must make a decision: do we want a European Union or not? That is the difference between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and me.
	By that, I do not mean that I do not want a European Union; it is just whether I want this one. The principle of renegotiation comes into that. To say that in principle we are against QMV hardly sits well with the fact that we passed the Single European Act. Incidentally, I wrote to the Prime Minister a few days ago and ended the letter by explaining, a little cheekily, that I voted for the Single European Act and he voted against it. We must remember that issues of principle are extremely important when applied in particular circumstances.
	Other issues also concern me. Amendment No. 3 deals with anti-discrimination and article 251 as it applies to the new provision. It is the usual combination of QMV in the Council and co-decision with the European Parliament. We should attack the implicit argument that member states will be racist in the absence of EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. We have seen what is going on in Bradford and Burnley. I am chairman of the all-party committee for the reduction of third world debt and am devoted to ensuring that there is no racism in this country. However, we are talking about a quasi-constitutional way to deal with an extremely sensitive issue. To assume that member states will be racist in the absence of EU-wide anti-discrimination laws is a difficult and dangerous route to take.

Mark Hendrick: I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman how he can possibly argue for QMV on, for example, child welfare, about which we heard powerful arguments, yet allow member states in modern western civilised democracies, which believe in humanity, to let employers and organisations discriminate on the grounds of race without legal redress in the EU?

William Cash: The answer to that probably lies in the Race Relations Act 1976. In fact, I was one of the first people to sign the equality declaration because I believe that we must ensure that there is no discrimination, but that should be achieved in a national context. My prime concern is with quasi-constitutional issues that apply to the EU as a whole. Race is a matter for nation states and is a good example of subsidiarity. Indeed, I could go into the problem of the Turks in Germany and similar issues, but I would probably take up too much time. Cross-border abductions are another matter.
	I recommend an interesting article by Professor Roberto de Matei on the charter of fundamental rights and the totalitarian spirit. No doubt you will pull me up sharply, Mrs. Heal, if I dwell on that, much as I should like to. I cannot understand why we are not allowed to debate the charter because it is a monumental shift in the juridical and jurisdictional nature of the EU and thus of this country.
	Amendment No. 4 deals with freedom of movement. Frankly, it boils down to my objection to the fact that decisions will be taken by QMV because of the move towards an arrangement that we would do best to avoid at this juncture.
	Amendment No. 5 covers article 100 on Community financial assistance, which deals with emergency relief for accidents, disasters and supply problems. Aid can now be given to member states in the event of "natural disasters", rather than solely in connection with "exceptional occurrences". I believe that that increases the probability of misinterpretation and what I call EU functional creep. Again, QMV is extended and the veto abolished. The attached non-binding declaration restricts the subsidies available for the next few years, but I regard the article as highly dangerous because it opens the door to extensive intra-EU redistribution of wealth.
	Amendment No. 6 deals with social provisions. The remit of the EU is being expanded to encompass the combating of social exclusion. I cannot imagine why that effort should be carried out on a European scale. The provision opens a book of blank cheques that will increase the sums of money made available on European scale, but does not answer the question of how those sums are to be provided. The modernisation of social protection systems is mentioned, but who knows what such vague terms mean? Again, everything is subject to QMV with the exception of four matters: protection of sacked workers, representation and collective defence of workers and the conditions of employment of third-country nationals, which remain subject to unanimity for the time being.
	In the final analysis, it is likely that the EU will use QMV in that context to meddle extensively with national security systems, which will threaten British interests. We noticed that during the general election the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he does not believe that the EU would start to play around with our national security system, but I regard the provision as an open door. It will be an Achilles' heel: the consequences of adopting such a route will be to make EU economic growth even more difficult.

Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible for the EU to spend as much money as it wants on anything when its member states have just agreed that there should be an absolute ceiling on EU spending of 1.27 per cent. of European gross national product?

William Cash: Skilful characters are trying to tempt me down all sorts of routes that would not meet with the Chairman's approval, but let me give an example by way of a quick response. Creating functions inevitably takes us closer to a tax regime, as Mr. Hans Eichel suggests. Romano Prodi calls for 60 billion euros. There is the problem. A gun is put to people's head: they are told that they have created the functions, so they must now pay for them. That equals taxation. I should like to refer to an article that I wrote, "The Paradox"—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he would deal with these matters rapidly.

William Cash: Indeed, I am doing so, Mrs. Heal, but questions remain regarding unfunded pensions, and other issues crop up in that context.
	Amendment No. 7 relates to QMV and codetermination with the European Parliament, which is now introduced for industrial policy. A necessary consequence of that is a further increase as socialist policies are imposed on countries such as the United Kingdom, or those with right-of-centre Governments. I object to the provision on those grounds.
	Amendment No. 8 relates to social cohesion and structural funds. After a massive fight at Nice in which the rearguard action was led by Spain, it was decided that structural funds are to be determined by QMV only from 2007. The problem for countries such as Spain, and the cause of the battle, is that enlargement reduces their relative degree of poverty and so deprives them of handouts, with the money going instead to eastern European countries. I have no doubt that they are truly poor and need the money, but the bottom line is that the eastern European elites have, in effect, been blackmailed and that is one of the reasons why they agreed to the extension of QMV. The problem is a serious one.
	Amendment No. 10 relates to environmental policy. QMV is introduced for recycling and waste management and a non-binding declaration adds that the EU is to take the lead in environmental issues, including sustainable development. That will, of course, not be accompanied by the necessary abolition of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
	Amendment No. 11 relates to economic, financial and technical co-operation with third countries, which raises serious problems. Again, QMV is attached, as are measures that allegedly reinforce democracy and the rule of law, which strikes one with my interest in third-world countries as a bit rich, considering the EU's record. That record causes me to doubt that the provision is liable to achieve its objective.
	Amendment No. 12 relates to the statute for Members of the European Parliament. Unanimity for the determination of the general conditions of MEPs is abolished, which means that the regulations and general conditions, including salaries, of Britain MEPs will no longer be determined by the United Kingdom. Article 190(5) represents the first step towards making MEPs wholly independent of member states. No doubt that is why the leader of the Conservative group was telling us to change the rules on our leadership on this morning's "Today" programme.
	Amendment No. 13 relates to article 191, which deals with "political parties at European level". The implication appears to be that restrictions will be placed on the way in which political parties are funded, which jeopardises free speech—an issue that affects us all. The article on regulations governing political parties could be interpreted as giving the Council powers to ban political parties that it dislikes. That must be watched extremely carefully. In my view, it should not be in the treaty.
	The original article was purely declaratory and quite vague about what was meant by "European political parties", but the article now gives the Council a role, a regulation and funding from EU funds. Decisions are to be taken by QMV with European Parliament co-decision. All in all, the article represents an important and unacceptable extension of EU power. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Parties in the European Parliament should be funded by national parties.
	Article 191 is followed by so-called declaration 11. It is intended to soothe Eurosceptic fears, but is legally non-binding. In addition, its first paragraph is factually incorrect. The whole point of the provisions added at Nice is to give more powers to the European Union.
	Amendment No. 14 relates to the appointment of the Secretary-General of the Council, which is to be made by a qualified majority vote. I could spend some time exploring that, but it is not necessary to do so. Suffice it to say that I disagree with it.
	Amendment No. 15 relates to salaries, pensions and allowances. I do not believe that the officers of the Court of First Instance should have their salaries determined by qualified majority vote.
	Amendment No. 7 relates to the European Court of Justice. Member states are to appoint judges and advocates by common accord. The replacement of judges is to be determined by the statute of the ECJ, and a new provision is included to determine the ECJ's rules of procedure by QMV. That is extremely dangerous, given that body's increasing importance.
	Amendment No. 18 relates to article 224 of the treaty, which deals with the Court of First Instance. Again, QMV is introduced. I do not agree with that. Amendment No. 22 deals with the Economic and Social Committee, whose numbers are to increase from 222 to 350.
	Amendment No. 24 deals with financial controls. Arguments have been advanced to show that from 2007 accounting procedures will be determined by QMV; it seems incredible that they should be dealt with in that way.
	Amendment No. 25 deals with articles on immigration and asylum policy, which are extremely opaque; there are many arguments against them but time does not permit me to develop them. Amendment No. 26 deals with the representation of the EU at international level on monetary union, which again is determined by QMV. Amendment No. 27 deals with special measures for the introduction of the euro, but I shall leave it and other amendments in the group for consideration in writing by the Minister. There are many amendments on matters amounting to an abrogation of the powers of the House.
	I shall return briefly to my opening remarks about not being able to see the wood for the trees. I have various objections to many aspects of the clause. Child abduction has to be dealt with; we must remedy the position of not being able to see the wood for the trees; in a nutshell, we must renegotiate the treaties. Until we do so, we shall continue to go in the wrong direction in the Europe Union.

Denzil Davies: I shall be brief. Our debate has been a kind of Second Reading—I do not criticise it for that—on qualified majority voting. I have a few points that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with in his reply. First, I want to make sure that I have the right treaties with me. I have been looking at some of them, but I cannot find certain things that perhaps I should be able to find.
	Amendment No. 1, the lead amendment, seeks to exclude article 2, paragraphs 2, 3, 5, 9 and others from the Bill. Looking at article 2, paragraph 2—this is no criticism of anybody, it is just me—I see that it relates to enhanced co-operation. It also states:
	"Article 11 shall be replaced by the following Articles 11 and 11a".
	As I understand it, article 11 is article 11 of the treaty establishing the European Community. It is cited on page 3 of the treaty of Nice, which says that it is in treaty series No. 29 (1996) Cm 3151.
	I went to the Vote Office and asked for Cm 3151, which—again I am not making any criticism—contains the treaty on European Union. That treaty is not terribly relevant to our discussion, as it does not create the rights and obligations that may impinge on domestic law. Cm 3151 also contains, conveniently, the treaty establishing the European Community; again, that is perfectly all right. That treaty is amended by the treaty of Nice; I hope that hon. Members can follow me. Article 11 of the treaty establishing the European Community is, as I understand it, being replaced by new articles 11 and 11a of the treaty of Nice. Fine; I looked up page 51 of the treaty establishing the European Community and found article 11.
	Until that point, I was deliriously happy; at least I had got that far. I found that the original article 11 is about enabling
	"governments to carry out . . . obligations with regard to customs duties".
	I looked at the top of the page, which is headed "Part Three: Community Policies". The new article 11, however, has nothing to do with customs duties; it is about enhanced co-operation and various other matters. Well, fine. Looking at page 51 of the treaty establishing the European Community, I found the heading "Community Policies" and thought, "Well, that is all right too." Title I under that heading is "Free movement of goods". I am not sure what that has got to do with enhanced co-operation or, indeed, all the other matters that are being amended or repealed. I am not going to complicate matters further but, looking further ahead in the treaty, I found the same problem again.
	I only want to ask the Minister, "Is it me?" I am prepared to accept that it is; perhaps over the past few years I have not followed certain treaties as closely as I should. Now that we are in a world of transparency for the EU, we are going to have a committee like the rather ridiculous tax rewrite Committee for Finance Bills. Apparently, we are now going to have an EU treaties rewrite committee. I do not particularly want to serve on that committee, and I am sure that it will take a long time to establish. However, I should like to know where I can find the article 11 that is being replaced by new articles 11 and 11a; the original article 11 is not in my copy of the treaty establishing the European Community. It may be in someone else's, but the Vote Office does not seem to have it. I do not know which copy the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is working from; I am not suggesting that it has a secret treaty, but perhaps it is working from different drafts.

Richard Shepherd: Different language.

Denzil Davies: The treaty is in different languages, but presumably the problem is still in the French version and every other version. Where do I find the article 11 that is being replaced by new articles 11 and 11a in the treaty of Nice? Or is article 11 in the treaty establishing the European Community, which has nothing to do with the new articles, being replaced? The Bill is important, so I hope that we will know which treaties we are talking about when we insert them in the European Communities Act 1972.
	I want to ask a few brief questions about the substance of some new articles that are incorporated by the treaty of Nice. Paragraph 5—if it is a paragraph—on page 16 says:
	"Article 100 shall be replaced by the following".
	I have not had the energy to check whether article 100 in the treaty of Nice is completely different from article 100 in the treaty establishing the European Community, or only a little different; I do not know whether the problem that applies to article 11 applies to it. However, we will let that go. Article 100 deals with paying money out or providing financial assistance to member states with difficulties caused by natural disasters. It refers to a member state
	"threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters"—
	I think that we probably understand what is meant by natural disasters—
	"or exceptional occurrences beyond its control".
	I do not know what is meant by "exceptional occurrences". Perhaps the Minister will give us, if not a definition—that may be asking too much of such a wide phrase—an example of exceptional occurrences that are beyond a state's control. I am sure that they exist and, no doubt, were discussed.
	The problem with incorporating treaties in statutory legislation—in effect, that is what we are doing—is that we do not have many definitions. Hardly ever do we find definitions in the treaty of Nice or in any of the other treaties, as one would expect in a statute, yet we are incorporating the treaty into the statute law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

John Bercow: I understand how curious the provisions seem. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is, at least potentially, a clear conflict between the provision for qualified majority voting in respect of what are opaquely described as "exceptional occurrences", and the general European prohibition on state aids?

Denzil Davies: I assume that the prohibition on state aids was a prohibition on aid from the state—its own Government—to an entity within that state. The treaty of Nice deals with supranational aid from the centre to the state, I suppose. Perhaps that is because there is a prohibition on state aids, but I am not sure.
	The measure goes on to state that
	"the Council, acting by a qualified majority . . . may grant, under certain conditions, Community financial assistance".
	May we be told what those conditions are? The person who drafted that must have had some idea of the kind of conditions that were meant; otherwise the word "certain" would, presumably, not have been inserted. It probably limits the relevant conditions, in the mind of the draftsman. What conditions would be imposed on the member state by the centralised body—the Council of Ministers or the Commission—in granting such aid?
	At the top of page 17 of the treaty of Nice, sub-paragraph (7) states:
	"Article 123(4) shall be replaced".
	I had a sneak preview of the original article 123(4) in my copy of the treaty establishing the European Community. I do not know what is stated in the Foreign Office copy, but in my copy that paragraph has nothing to do with what is contained in the amendment to the treaty. It has nothing to do with that extremely important article, which deals with the third stage. I remember something about the third stage from years ago, when we discussed the treaty of Maastricht. No doubt the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) remembers it well.

William Cash: The beginnings of flexibility.

Denzil Davies: I am not sure about flexibility. The third stage is not very flexible in respect of the amendment.
	What is being replaced by sub-paragraph (7)? It is certainly not replacing what I have in my copy, but it may be replacing what the Foreign Office has in its copy. Why is the change necessary now? Is the new article 123(4) substantially different from that which it replaces?
	The article deals with unanimity and the fixed rate at which a member state's currency is translated into ecus. I thought that the ecu had gone, but apparently we still have ecus, at least in the paragraph to which I refer. It states that
	"the ECU shall be substituted for these currencies"—
	that is, the member states' currencies. The fixed rate becomes the rate for the ecu, as I understand it.
	The article continues:
	"This measure shall by itself not modify the external value of the ECU."
	I have no idea what that means. I hope that we will be told. We are incorporating the new article, which refers to fixing rates irrevocably. Would that apply if and when the United Kingdom joins the single currency? Will new article 123(4) then be applicable to us? I should have thought so. It refers to fixing the rate and converting that rate into ecus. What happens to the preceding two years and the need for sterling to float? I do not understand. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the article will affect us.

Richard Shepherd: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is behaving like Mr. Gradgrind? Such detailed questions are outrageous. The thrust of the treaty is surely to consolidate a European state. It is therefore outrageous to discuss the mere detail, as he is doing. We should accept the intent, which is clear to most of us. The treaty drives towards the consolidation of a state in which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent.

Denzil Davies: That has been my view ever since the European Communities Act 1972. I do not want digress and be out of order, but being a Celt, I could smell an Act of Union in 1972. The English are not very good at smelling Acts of Union, because they have never had such Acts imposed on them, but that is coming. That was the hon. Gentleman's point, I think.
	The detail of the single currency is important, and I hope that the Minister will explain why we have new article 123(4) and what the old one was, as it is not in my copy of the treaty establishing the European Community.
	Finally, there is another extremely important amendment in paragraph 5 at the bottom of page 17. It deals with GATT—the general agreement on tariffs and trade—trade in services, intellectual property, the Uruguay round and all that went with it, and the surprising decision of the European Court of Justice in favour of the competence of the nation state. That must be one of the few cases in which that political court came down in favour of the nation state against the Commission, which was particularly angry at the time. Now, that is being overturned. The competence of the nation state is being taken away. Whether that could have been called a veto, I do not know.

Peter Hain: In case I cannot deal in my reply with all the details that my right hon. Friend raises, I shall write to him. He may wish to know that there was a mistake in the Command Paper containing the treaty of Nice. Two footnotes were later corrected. I want to be sure that he has that correction.

Denzil Davies: I do not, although I studied the footnotes carefully. Perhaps I should not refer to the footnotes in the treaty establishing the European Community, as that might confuse the Foreign Office even more. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. It is my fault that I did not understand a word that he said, but I am sure that he will deal with the matter at greater length when he winds up. If not, no doubt he will, like all Ministers, resort to a letter. I am sure that I shall get a learned letter, which will be placed in the Library.
	The trade in services negotiation will be difficult and important. There are fundamental views on all sides about it. I am sorry that the Government have given up the competence of the member state—of this member state, which is my concern. Whatever view one takes of the agreement on trade in services, the effect of multinational companies and so on, I am sorry that my Government have given up their competence on that and handed it over to qualified majority voting. This is not a trivial veto on a matter such as the registrar of the European Court. Who cares who the registrar is? That, apparently, is the Foreign Office view, but I do not agree with it.
	The veto is extremely important, as it goes to the heart of trade in services and its effect on this country and others. Of course, the French have protected their culture and have obtained a derogation. Where negotiation deals with French culture, they have got a veto, but the Brits gave that right up. Perhaps we are not as interested in culture as the French. I am sorry that we have given up the veto, which is not trivial or minor. Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain, in what might be a rather lengthy reply, the rationale behind giving up the power of the House in a matter that is as important as international trade in services?
	I think that I had better stop there. I am sure that I could speak about many other aspects of the treaty, but I have made a few points with which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal.

John Redwood: I have made my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who has done the Committee a great service by pointing out a problem that I, too, have discovered. I thought that I had come to the Chamber well prepared for this detailed debate in Committee. I brought the treaty with me, but when I tried to pursue the amendments and the Government's proposals in the documentation, I encountered exactly the same problems that he faced. I shall not repeat what he said about them, but I hope that the Minister will deal with them. We appear to be amending and introducing legislation for a treaty under the heading of articles that bear no relation to the documentation that is available to hon. Members for this debate. I shall proceed on the basis that the Government should know what they are doing and in the light of the other documentation that I have read, even though it is not within the correct frame of reference for this debate.
	I want to return to the main issue with which the amendments deal—the question of how much qualified majority voting is desirable—and to consider whether it would be better to join my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in saying that we do not want any of the proposed extensions of qualified majority voting, or whether the Government have a point. Their argument is that, because modest powers over trade and commerce were surrendered to qualified majority voting under a previous Conservative Government, it is clear that we must surrender a range of other powers, some of which are more serious, dealing with a range of other matters that are in no way connected with the single market or trading. Similarly, one could suggest that, if one drink makes someone happy and shows that they are clubbable, that person should get stoned out of their mind by drinking everything that they can lay their hands on. According to the Government, they would have no problems whatever with a hangover or a headache.
	Although it is the official Conservative case that a few drinks of qualified majority voting are all right, but a lot would make one completely drunk, I take the view, having negotiated under QMV, that it should be a prohibited substance. I do not believe that, even in our new inclusive spirit, we should seek to remove it from the list of prohibited substances, because it is closer to a hard drug than anything else that might be up for review.

John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that qualified majority voting is infinitely more damaging to health than cannabis?

John Redwood: I think, Mrs. Heal, that I am being drawn wide of the subject of the debate.

Desmond Swayne: I would be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's view on one specific increase in qualified majority voting—the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned in relation to child abduction. Does he agree that such a move would be a step too far? Should the issue be covered by multilateral and bilateral negotiations, or was my hon. Friend the Member for Stone right to table his amendment?

John Redwood: I usually find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on European matters, but I fear that I cannot follow him on that specific issue. His usual cogent arguments against qualified majority voting relate to issues on which we wish to develop international agreement as well as to those on which we do not want to develop any such agreement. He should bear in mind the fact that if the leading continental countries are against his proposal, they can block it under qualified majority voting. If they favour it, however, he can obtain what he seeks by negotiation with the veto in place. The veto is an important guarantee even in that respect, as it can prevent this country from being forced into doing things with which he would not agree.

William Cash: As my right hon. Friend and I are going to disagree—we can agree to disagree—I must remind him that when the Maastricht treaty was considered, there were many matters on which we voted differently. I leave that as a matter of record.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. He might like to remember my record on qualified majority voting. I was the chief policy adviser to Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven when she was negotiating the Single European Act as Prime Minister. My advice was that we should not surrender the powers in perpetuity, but make the surrender extremely limited for the specific purpose of the few directives needed—as we saw it—for the single market, and let the powers revert. Unfortunately, the Baroness did not accept my advice on that occasion, although she did so on many others. I did my best to prevent surrender of the powers, as I thought that that was wrong then.
	On the Maastricht treaty, my hon. Friend will know that mine was one of the few voices—often the only voice—in the Cabinet to say that it was wrong to surrender the powers. After I resigned from the Government, I was able to make my view public. I can assure him that I never agreed to the proposals in the Cabinet Committee, but I obviously could not make that known to the general public until I had resigned. Perhaps I fought on too long, but I felt that somebody in that Cabinet had to put the case against QMV and other measures that I thought were leading too fast towards European integration.

Roger Casale: After some of the interventions by Opposition Members, the right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to take a more frivolous turn. I am not sure whether we have now returned to serious debate. There is a difference between what he and Opposition Front Benchers seem to want. Those on the Front Bench would like to rule out in principle any further extensions of QMV in future, but he would like to end all the qualified majority voting procedures that already exist, too. How does he propose to negotiate with our partner states an end to all the qualified majority voting procedures that currently exist in the European Union? How would he achieve that?

John Redwood: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has leapt to conclusions that my comments did not justify. I explained that I had in the past consistently opposed extensions of qualified majority voting, but I fully support the Conservative Front Bench position, which is to say no to the further surrenders in the treaty. Furthermore, I support my Front-Bench colleagues in saying that we should get powers back over a wide range of matters, including agriculture and fisheries, in respect of which the surrender has gone too far.
	I accept that there has to be a renegotiation and that we will not get all the powers back, but if we do not ask for some of them back, we will not get any. I object strongly to what the Government are doing, not only because they fail to try to get powers back when we are clearly at a disadvantage after surrenders by Governments of all persuasions, but because they then frivolously give away the powers under discussion without understanding how that undermines their position and that of future Governments. They do not understand how their actions are undermining the position of United Kingdom voters and our democracy, or how they will come back to haunt this country in future.
	Labour Members suggest that the measures are needed for enlargement, but that is one of the most misleading points that has been made in this debate. We know that the Irish people wisely voted against the whole treaty. It is difficult to see why we must rush through this discussion on qualified majority voting, when they have said that it is not important for enlargement, and they do not want it to be foisted upon them in larger measure, so they have vetoed it and other important parts of the treaty.
	When the Danish voted no in the original referendum on the Maastricht treaty and the single currency, mine was a lager. I am now more attracted to stout. It is good that two smaller European countries have shown their independence and a democratic will that can be expressed in referendums. I wish that the Government would give us a referendum on QMV and the Nice treaty, which has fundamental constitutional implications. I do not understand why they need to rush the Bill through when the Irish people have said no, and there is no immediate prospect of reversing their decision. The British Government believe that in the case of a no vote, they should keep balloting, in the hope that people will vote yes through exhaustion. That does not augur well for any referendum for which they may provide.
	Government amendments to the treaty and the Bill are required to allow us to renegotiate the common agricultural policy. That issue is not being solved and it is crucial for member states and applicant members.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment by referring to that subject.

John Redwood: I was trying to put QMV in context. It is at the heart of the amendments that I support.
	More QMV will lead directly to more Community activism, orchestrated by the European Commission. A European government already exists; it is unelected and powerful. The measure that we are considering manifests that government's wish to gain more and more power over the aspects of our lives that are detailed in the documents we are discussing. Those aspects range widely from product markets through discrimination to control over political parties. A powerful executive Government might take such powers in a democracy, with voters' approval—but they should not be given to an unelected, undemocratic government, which usually meets behind closed doors and is not subject to the same scrutiny and exposure as a proper democratic regime.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right. One does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. Does he realise that there was a dramatic extension of QMV in the treaty of Amsterdam? Since its ratification, 4,995 European Union directives, regulations and decisions have had an impact on this country. That precisely illustrates my right hon. Friend's point.

John Redwood: I knew the general point, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's repertoire of statistics, which illustrates it with great clarity and precision.
	Enlarging the Community does not require a super-active or hyperactive government, which generates more and more laws. Indeed, that makes enlargement more difficult. If more regulations and laws are imposed not only on richer members, but on poorer states at a different level of economic development, they may not be able to catch up with such intrusive government and expensive regulation. More power for the Commission to legislate through QMV is the last thing an enlarged Community needs.
	We are told that the Community will come to a halt without qualified majority powers—but if, as a legislature, it slows down, that is not bad news; it is good news. We have too many laws. Some are generated by our Government, but at least they can be democratically removed when people believe that the position has become insufferable. If we allow QMV to advance ever more strongly, we cannot control the massive volume of law from Brussels. That will be damaging to applicant members. The poorer the country, the more damaging it will be; it will create an impenetrable barrier for poor countries.

Roger Casale: The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to renegotiate the treaties on the European Union. Which other Governments of member states would like a European Union in which the veto was restored and powers were repatriated? What would the right hon. Gentleman offer in return? Does he believe that his negotiating stance is such that he could achieve something for nothing?

John Redwood: That is a little wide of the debate, but I have set the facts out elsewhere. Baroness Thatcher was 11:1 down when she sought repayment of our colossal contributions. That did not daunt her, and her negotiating skills were sufficient to gain unanimity in favour of a rebate for us. We need such a negotiating power, and a Conservative Administration could provide it. We would offer our partners many things, such as our presence, our trade and our good will. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that they sell us far more than we sell them. They have every interest in our remaining part of the trading club; there is no reason for us to join their common government.

Jim Knight: Which of the five candidates for the Tory leadership has the negotiating skill of Baroness Thatcher and could achieve the aims that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is very wide of the discussion.

John Redwood: I thank you, Mrs. Heal, for respecting the secrecy of the ballot.
	We have been told that the Government are committed, as the previous Administration claimed to be, to subsidiarity. We are also told that subsidiarity flourishes and is alive. It is difficult to understand how it can develop or flourish when so much extra QMV is to be introduced. That is a contradiction. If we lose our veto over more subjects, more will be decided in Brussels. More decisions will be made against our will. Far from letting power percolate back to member states and their democratically elected Parliaments, the Bill constitutes a massive extension of state power at the European level by the unelected government of the Commission, aided and abetted by the absentee Ministers who occasionally attend lunches in Brussels and rubber-stamp the Commission's plans.
	The democratically elected constituent parts of the European government cannot even propose a draft law or regulation. The Commissioners of the unelected government in Brussels have to do all the drafting. The British Government are incapable of setting an agenda, negotiating in favour of a British position and changing the Brussels agenda. The current British style of negotiation is to ring the Commission, discover its agenda, rush out a press release stating that that is what they would like, and return claiming triumph when they have run up the white flag yet again. As QMV increases, that will be increasingly true.

John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. Not only is it true that the British Government are incapable of drafting a directive or regulation that could be adopted by Brussels, but more importantly, Members of Parliament are incapable of stopping any draft regulation or directive. The sole power of our European Standing Committees is to refuse to "take note" of something—and the Question is then put on the Floor of the House and automatically nodded through even if we have voted in favour of not taking note.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. It is dispiriting that so much of our democracy is being removed. The Bill will make things worse. On many subjects, the House may not even be consulted before a Minister goes to Brussels to consider a proposition. The Minister may go along with a proposition because he fears being outvoted, or he may be bold enough to endure that. He will then return to the House and claim that he has triumphed and that it is in our interest to accept the proposition. If we try to do anything, it will not matter because the proposition will already be good law, settled at European government level. The views of the House will be overridden yet again.
	The Under-Secretary smiles wanly because he knows that I have outlined the true position; perhaps he is in favour of that. I wonder why he wants to remain a Member of Parliament when he is so keen for all the decisions that we used to make to be taken elsewhere by QMV or by the executive order and fiat of Commissioners whom we have not elected.
	We are considering the negotiating powers of member states, and whether they have the right to defend their national interest. When I was a Minister, I attended some 21 Councils of Ministers—primarily the single market Council, but others as well—and I got a range of experience. Whenever I went with a veto, I found negotiating a pleasurable and relatively straightforward experience. I could guarantee to my colleagues in the Government that I would never come back with an answer that we could not accept.
	All the time that there was political support in the Government for the line that I wished to take—that was another issue—I could guarantee to my colleagues that I would either come back with a vastly improved draft because I had threatened to use the veto until I got the draft that I wanted, or come back empty-handed, and often happier that way, saying that I had used the veto because the proposals were totally unacceptable and that the British position had been preserved by exercising that veto. There was never any danger: we got either good law or no law. I would normally favour no law, although there are rare occasions when one might want a good law. With a veto, one can guarantee either good law or no law. Surely that makes sense for any Minister.

Wayne David: How many times was the veto used against the United Kingdom when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister?

John Redwood: Not as often as I would have liked. It is entirely reasonable that member states should protect their national interests. It is also reasonable, in a world of subsidiarity, that in most cases there should be not a European law but national laws passed by each member state according to its wishes. I want a trading arrangement, primarily, and a single market that works. I do not believe that we get a single market by having lots of laws. We pass too many laws in the name of the single market.
	A single market is about traders, freedom of movement and removing barriers. It is also about having no customs dues, about having the ability to sell a product or service here as well as there, and about Governments not getting in the way. As always with the European Union, it tries to turn the single market into a massive extension of state power. It has proposed some 300 laws, many of which we finally agreed to because we had to under QMV, and many of those were not strictly necessary for a single market. The single market would be stronger if quite a number of them were repealed.
	When I tried to negotiate under QMV, I found it far more time-consuming and expensive in every way. There were times when I was able to persuade my partners and colleagues and win them over. However, that might take three to six months of intensive campaigning involving international telephone calls, getting on planes to foreign capitals to persuade friendly Ministers, horse-trading on particular issues, developing parliamentary tactics or making people sit up late into the night—which they were not used to doing—in the hope that they would give in to me on a vital clause because they wanted to go home.
	All those things had to be done, and it was not a pleasurable experience. I often had to come back and report to the House of Commons—as I always did, because I thought that that was important—that we were making law that was not ideal, but that it was the best we could do in the circumstances because we had given away our right to make, in the House and on behalf of the British people, the laws that we thought were correct.
	I urge the House to support the position of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and of the official Opposition—supporting whatever amendments are necessary in the light of the advice that we get on the documentation from the Foreign Office, which seems to be a bit of a shambles—to ensure that we do not give away any more qualified majority votes. Before the Minister says, "We can't do that, because Britain has given its word", I would say that Britain is surely still sufficiently democratic that, if the British people and their parliamentary representatives think that this treaty goes a step too far, we can go back to our European partners and say that it goes a step too far. We have the opportunity to do that now, because the Irish people have said that it goes several steps too far, and that, as far as they can see, the treaty of Nice is a dead letter.
	Many good points have been made on individual items. I do not want to take up much more time, as others wish to contribute, but I am worried by the proposals on product intervention and the surrender of the unanimity clause. I find those proposals ambiguous, and I am not sure that the Government have protected our position on oil in the way that they claim. Whenever I have raised the issue, their defence has always sounded rather shrill. They are clearly worried by the issue, and I would like to hear their legal advice on it.
	I am worried about the subsidies to member states in trouble. We have not had a clear enough definition of what that might mean and how much it might cost British taxpayers.
	I am also worried by any hint of dilution of the veto on the common foreign and security policy. This country should control its own foreign policy, and its own Army, Navy and Air Force. The Government are on the slide on that issue. I trust that they will offer leadership in Europe, but I want them to do so by power of persuasion, not by giving away our right to go it alone should the need arise. I am worried that the rules on structural funds might now pass out of veto territory into qualified majority voting territory. I fear that we might not do as well as we would wish if that were to happen.
	My final observation is about the extraordinary text—highlighted by the right hon. Member for Llanelli—concerning the European Central Bank and the ecu. I thought that the ecu had been pensioned off some time ago, and was being replaced by the euro. I was always worried about the legality of that move, because the ecu is the currency in the treaty and it has a specific value, which could be different from that of the euro at any given point because of the way in which currencies move, and the fact that it is a weighted basket currency. We now see the ecu coming back in the language of the treaty of Nice.
	I hope that the Minister will explain why we have reinvented the ecu when the Germans and others were trying to polish it off, and why we did not have proper amendments to the treaty confessing that the whole third stage plan for the ecu had gone wrong. That plan was blown up when the exchange rate mechanism fell to pieces, and when the German Government decided that the ecu was an embarrassment because it had sunk so far against the deutschmark. I hope that the Minister will also explain why we do not have proper treaty amendments for incorporation into the Bill to make the euro an honest currency in the legal sense, even if it is still a devaluing currency in every other sense. It is not a currency that I welcome. I see the Minister laughing. He would be well advised to make it legally honest, even if it is never going to be honest money.
	I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and a united Conservative party in saying that we do not want all this qualified majority voting. It undermines our liberties and our democracy, and it is taking away the rights entrusted to us by the British people. Our tenure in this place is leasehold—although some have longer leases than others—and it is wrong to give away the freehold.

Wayne David: The treaty of Nice is an exceptionally good deal for the United Kingdom. There is much in it that deserves to be commended. For example, it contains proposals for sensible changes to the European Parliament, for well-thought-out changes to the European Commission and for significant changes to the European Union's legal system. There will also be significant changes to the Council of Ministers, especially with regard to qualified majority voting and to voting in the Council of Ministers.
	As the Government explained in their White Paper in the lead-up to the Nice summit, QMV does not weaken Britain's place in Europe. The opposite is the case: a sensible extension of QMV will strengthen the United Kingdom's position. It is interesting that, in this philosophical debate, the Opposition have conceded that there are many circumstances in which QMV has already operated to the material benefit of the United Kingdom. The greatest single achievement of the European Union to date is the single European market. No one in this debate has doubted for a moment that that single market, although not yet complete, would not have proceeded as far as it has done without qualified majority voting.
	I am, therefore, happy to see an extension to qualified majority voting. Some of the measures proposed in the treaty of Nice advocate an extension of QMV in areas of no tremendous significance—for example, with regard to the Committee of the Regions and to the Economic and Social Committee. Not many people would argue that those two bodies were institutions of great significance. In fact, they are decidedly not European Union institutions.
	However, I accept that other areas in which an extension of QMV is proposed are of some significance. The structural funds have already been mentioned. The extension is also proposed in areas of industrial and commercial policy and in environmental measures. It is also suggested that it be extended to ensure that the single European market is made complete.

John Bercow: Arguing by advocacy rather than by evidence, the hon. Gentleman contends that the single market is a tribute to qualified majority voting. If that is his position—it is a perfectly honourable one—can he tell the House how and why the free trade agreement that Switzerland has with the European Union is inferior to participation within the formal confines of the single market?

Wayne David: The free trade agreement with Switzerland is a positive measure, but it is only the beginning of what, we hope, will become a more complete arrangement. I hope that, as many people have advocated, the Swiss will reconsider their position and develop an ever-closer association with the EU in future. The current arrangements are a step in the right direction, but there is further to go.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of Switzerland and Norway will become untenable as the EU expands further, as they will have the benefits of the EU but none of the costs, and that those benefits, if they wish to retain them, will have to be looked at carefully?

Wayne David: I agree with my hon. Friend that the position is not ideal, but not that it is untenable. It is satisfactory at present and points us in the right direction. The position of Switzerland and Norway indicates that a deeper association is mutually desirable.
	Further to my points about the single European market, it has been accepted that there were difficulties in securing the legislation that we wanted in our national interests when unanimity was required. Given that there were difficulties with an EU membership of 15, we can imagine how much more difficult it would be with a membership of 27. It would be enormously difficult to try to achieve unanimity. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) told us that when he was a Minister he used to fly around Europe making deals and arrangements. Even he would find it difficult to fly around 26 member states trying to secure agreement on different items of policy.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is making my point. One has to fly around Europe dealing with all these people because of qualified majority voting. If we had a veto there would be no need for that. If there was a silly proposal the British Government would simply say no.

Wayne David: On the other hand, instead of voting everything down, seeking to destroy everything and being entirely negative, as the Opposition would like us to be, would it not be far better if we had an imaginative, powerful agenda for Europe, as the Government have, and the power of advocacy to fulfil that agenda?
	We have heard a lot about the United Kingdom being able to exercise a veto, but we should not forget that if we have a veto so will every other member state. At the moment the EU comprises 15 member states. If there were 27 member states, they would all have a veto and that would be a farcical situation. Apart from the Opposition, very few people in Europe are trying to argue that proposition.

Andrew Turner: Does not the hon. Gentleman betray the mindset with which he and his hon. Friends come to this House by suggesting that the great enterprise of additional legislation will lead us to some utopia? Is it not a matter of the danger of additional legislation that we can prevent by the exercise of a veto, but not through qualified majority voting?

Wayne David: I return to the point that I was making earlier. The Government have a positive agenda for Europe. We want to build a better Europe. We are not satisfied with simply maintaining the status quo or attempting to turn the clock back. We want the EU to develop so that we have a single market, supported by a strong social backdrop to produce the wealth-creating capacity that we all want.
	Let me give an example of what could happen if we had enlargement without the extension of qualified majority voting. Reference has been made to the structural funds. Let us imagine that the British Government, negotiating the new financial perspective from 2007 onwards, negotiated a very good deal for the regions of the United Kingdom, drawing substantial sums of money from the structural funds, but at the last moment one of the new member states—such as Slovenia, with a population of under 2 million—suddenly refused to accept that and decided to exercise its veto. It would be perfectly entitled to do so. What would happen if Cyprus, with a population of 700,000, decided to exercise its veto? It would be perfectly entitled to do so. What would happen if Malta, with a population of under 300,000, decided that the deal negotiated by the United Kingdom was unacceptable and chose to exercise its veto? That would be an untenable and farcical situation in which deals negotiated by our democratically elected Government could be scuppered by a small minority of people in a far-flung section of the EU. That is not democracy.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman must surely not need reminding that we are a net contributor to the EU and the vetoing of a structural fund allocation is not something over which we should weep if we were able to retain the money and distribute it among our own regions as we wished.

Wayne David: That is a much broader argument that goes far beyond this debate. It is not an argument against the Nice treaty, but in favour of our withdrawal from the EU, which I suspect many Opposition Members would like to happen.
	Let me return to qualified majority voting and the proposed changes. With regard to the weighting of votes at the Council of Ministers, it is worth pointing out that under the present formula the United Kingdom has 10 votes, which represent 11.4 per cent. of the 87 votes. Under the Nice treaty it is proposed that, with a membership of 15, the United Kingdom would have 29 of the 237 votes. That would be an increase to 12.2 per cent. of the votes, so under the Nice treaty the United Kingdom's position would be strengthened by the reformulation of votes. Admittedly, that is only in the short term. After enlargement, the voting strength of all the larger states will be reduced as a percentage of the total.
	I wish that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) were in his place, as it is worth noting that Germany, which has the largest population in the EU, will have the lowest voting strength in relation to its population. I find it objectionable that the hon. Member suggests that there is some kind of plot whereby Germany is trying to take the lead and subvert democracy. What has been negotiated at Nice demonstrates that that is absurd.
	As we have already heard, qualified majority voting is not being advocated across the board. It is important for us to recognise that in some areas such as taxation, social security and border controls, there is an argument for maintaining the principle of unanimity. We are not arguing a maximalist position, but a reasoned pragmatic position that will take Europe and the United Kingdom forward.
	In conclusion, I believe that the treaty of Nice is absolutely essential for EU enlargement, as is qualified majority voting, and enlargement is in the interests of all the candidate countries. Clearly, those countries would not be applying for membership of the EU if it were not in their best interests to do so. Let me stress, however, that it is also in our best interests. It will mean more jobs and more trade and will allow us to tackle common problems. It will mean fewer pressures for economic migration. Perhaps above all else, it will mean greater economic stability, with peace and security. It will mean an end to the east-west divide that has scarred our continent for too long.
	That is why I honestly believe that the amendment will be rejected and that the House will eventually lend its support to the treaty of Nice.

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that he wanted to press amendment No. 233 to a vote. I ask hon. Members to look at the amendment paper, where they will see that people have subscribed to that amendment whom one would normally regard as the standard bearers of rectitude in matters European. One would have thought that they were the people to follow, given the reputation that they have established in these matters.
	My hon. Friend was persuasive in his arguments for amendment No. 233. He told us of the agony experienced by a mother who had her children abducted and could not gain access to them. Those emotional arguments were so powerful that he abrogated the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) set out at the beginning of the debate: that the Opposition were opposed to any further encroachments of qualified majority voting.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone said that such was the extremity of this one case that we should take a further leap and place family law into the domain of qualified majority voting, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been persuaded by him and subscribed to the amendment.
	The problem of child abduction in Europe is very much, though not exclusively, a German one, under laws that date back unreformed to national socialism. My hon. Friend was forensic in his exposition of how majority voting has changed under the treaty of Nice and how the Germans will increasingly get their way as a consequence of their increase in the share of the qualified majority, and particularly the double majority voting. That entirely undermines his case for the amendment. The consequence will be that we will have cast family law into the pot for qualified majority voting, but the Germans, by the strength of his own argument, will get their way anyway. Far better, I urge my hon. Friends, to oppose the amendment and stick with the principle established by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, dealing with such matters by bilateral negotiations.

Mark Hendrick: The decision-making processes agreed at Nice are considerably to the benefit of the United Kingdom. They have been changed to ensure democratic legitimacy. In qualified majority voting, not only will the qualified majority be necessary but the votes will have to represent at least 62 per cent. of the total population of the European Union before a decision can be made.
	The comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the Germanification of Europe are totally unfounded, because the treaty says that Germany will have the same number of votes as the UK, even though the German population is 82 million and ours only 57 million. It says:
	"Acts of the Council shall require for their adoption at least 258 votes in favour, cast by a majority of members, where this Treaty requires them to be adopted on a proposal from the Commission."
	Germany has only 29 of those 258 votes. We can see that people who pretend to be interested in Britain remaining in the European Union are using scaremongering tactics on qualified majority voting and enhanced co-operation.
	The President of the European Commission will now have to be approved by the European Council by QMV and there will be new powers to organise the Commission and sack individual Commissioners if necessary. Many of us remember the appointment of the previous Commission President and the disagreement between European Governments, when unanimity was needed. Every single member state had a veto. If that was bad with the 12 member states that existed then, what would it be like with 25, 26, 27 or 28 members? Because they could not reach agreement, the 12 member states at the time came up with Mr. Jacques Santer, who proved to be a useless head of the European Commission. Decisions were made that lacked clarity, concision or vision, and we ended with the spectacle of a totally discredited European Commission.

John Redwood: If the Commission President was so bad and the Commission so discredited, why did not Mr. Kinnock resign?

Mark Hendrick: I was in discussions with Mr. Kinnock at the time. He wanted the entire Commission to resign, and he was instrumental in persuading certain Commissioners, including Mrs. Cresson, to do so. One of the most reluctant to resign was the President himself, who was appointed under the unanimity procedures that the Conservative party is still trying to defend. Unanimity may be okay for decisions such as own resources, border controls, treaty changes and taxation, but not across the board. QMV has worked in Britain's interests. In 1998–99, there were 85 contested QM votes in the Council of Ministers. The UK was outvoted or abstained on five occasions, compared with eight for France and 21 for Germany.
	QMV protects Britain's interests in many areas, including the European Court of Justice; trade in services; article 161, on the tasks and rules of the structural and cohesion funds, which will stop net recipients blocking efficiency and cost savings; environmental issues; financial regulation; appointments; and industrial policy. The Opposition amendments are aimed not at improving the European Union, but at wrecking the Nice treaty and other treaties negotiated over decades, as well as wrecking the relationship that we have with the 14 other member states.

Peter Hain: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who will appreciate—indeed, he anticipated—that I will study what he said with great care before I write to him in detail on the points he raised. I have pointed out to him that there were a number of errors in the footnotes of the Command Paper that have been corrected. That may account for some of the issues he mentioned, if not all.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), as before, exulted in being Mr. Veto in Europe. A fine load of good that did Britain and I am not sure that it did him much good either. It is important that we concentrate on the big picture. People listening to this debate could have been sidetracked into some of the intricate detail and away from the big picture.
	When Britain joined the European Economic Community, under a Conservative Government, there were already a considerable number of articles in the treaty of Rome that were subject to qualified majority voting. As the EEC and, later, the EU has grown larger, so there has been a need to extend QMV to stop decision making grinding to a halt.
	Frankly, the picture painted by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was literally incredible, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) observed, there is at least a measure of hypocrisy in Conservative criticisms of the Bill because the biggest extension of QMV came with Mrs. Thatcher's Single European Act in 1986. Literally thousands of directives and regulations have been passed using articles to which QMV was extended under the Single European Act.
	The Single European Act allowed progress on the single market to be accelerated; a good thing, too. Yet the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was happy to see QMV, to use his phrase, "bulldozed through" in the Single European Act, for which he voted, but not in other areas.
	I admire the sense of principle and integrity of the hon. Member for Stone when he realises that an issue needs addressing—he spoke with great eloquence and sincerity about child abduction. The original proposal at Nice was that the whole of article 65 should move to QMV but one member state in particular was adamant that family law should be excluded. Given that unanimity applies to treaty change, and that we asked others to respect where we considered a matter of fundamental importance to be at stake, we had to respect that decision. The hon. Member for Stone differs from the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who seems blind to the dreadful problem of child abduction.
	Maastricht also introduced QMV to many new areas of activity: implementing measures for common foreign and security policy and for the justice and home affairs pillars; for trans-European networks in transport; for telecommunications and energy infrastructures; for development policy co-operation; for consumer protection; and for the environment.
	Why am I dwelling on the history? Because it was not this Government who agreed to those moves, but the Conservative party: the same party that now tells us that it is against new extensions of QMV in principle; the same party that calls QMV "giving away the veto" and an "erosion of national sovereignty"; the same party that has such a negative view of Europe that it seemingly cannot accept that QMV can ever be in Britain's interests. It is also the same party that has tabled amendments to the Bill seeking to remove every single new area of QMV.
	Let us examine some of the new areas where Britain's national sovereignty is being eroded. The Conservatives object to the use of QMV on the financial regulations in article 279, which will make it easier to carry out much-needed reforms to tighten financial management, making rules for accounting officers and financial audit. These provisions will ensure that the British taxpayers' money is used properly. We do not want vested interests to block such reforms; we want more efficient ways to tackle fraud, mismanagement and waste in the EU. I am astonished that the Conservatives do not.

William Cash: I recognise the dilemma in amendment No. 233, but we are considering the problems affecting children and their parents in difficult circumstances. We should be able to concede on that matter, but not in relation to matters of European government, which is a different issue altogether. That applies to common foreign and security policy, as well as to Maastricht and Amsterdam, which we largely negotiated.

Peter Hain: I always enjoy my dialogues with the hon. Gentleman, who is a serious student of this matter. He deserves respect and to be listened to. However, government is about areas of social policy such as family law. It is to his credit that he has recognised that, in the appalling example to which he referred, QMV should apply; we wanted that in Nice, but were unable to achieve it. However, he should look with similar objectivity at other aspects of its application.
	The Conservative party objects to QMV to appoint special representatives in common foreign and security policy.

John Redwood: Quite right.

Peter Hain: "Quite right," says the right hon. Gentleman. To whose credit is haggling over the nationality of these representatives, so that they arrive too late do any good? QMV will make sure that the right person is appointed quickly—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston in another context. We have had national interests blocking the best person for the job. QMV enables that to be overcome.
	The Conservatives object to QMV being applied to incentive measures to help stamp out discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. We have been encouraging the Commission to do more in this area; QMV will make that task easier. We still have built-in safeguards to prevent any weakening of British standards through harmonisation of national legislation.
	I could go on; in fact, I will. Another important point is that the Conservatives object to QMV on industrial policy under article 157(3), which is about competitiveness. QMV will help us to deliver the Lisbon economic reform agenda. It will deliver measures to support initiative, the development of small and large enterprises and better exploitation of innovation and research; all measures that will clearly benefit British business.
	The amendment that really takes the biscuit and shows how far down the road of madness the Conservatives have gone is the one that would strike from the treaty the move to QMV on deciding the pension rights of the registrar of the Court of First Instance. Apparently this and articles like it represent such a monumental erosion of national sovereignty that the Opposition are demanding complete renegotiation of the treaty; more, they are demanding a referendum. The Conservative party would deny the British people a referendum on joining the euro, one of the most important issues of our time; the same party that denied the people a referendum on the fundamental changes made by the treaty of Maastricht. However, it wants the British people trooping off to the polls over the crucial constitutional issue of the pension rights of the registrar of the Court of First Instance. This is bizarre.

John Redwood: Like the Minister, I wish to see fraud and racism stamped out throughout the EU and beyond. Which are the countries that the Minister thinks will support fraud and racism that need to be overridden by the use of QMV? Surely we can negotiate on those matters by unanimity. Which countries are so awful?

Peter Hain: That is not the way to look at the issue. In tackling discrimination, difficult and tough decisions are needed. There are different views about how we achieve it, and QMV helps.
	The Government take a pragmatic view towards QMV based on calculating Britain's interests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said in his excellent speech. On structural funds post-2007, QMV may well assist in advancing that issue for areas such as Wales. QMV works for Britain; it built the single market on which more than 3 million British jobs and thousands of businesses depend. It is simply not true that Britain always loses out and others always win, as Conservative fantasy suggests. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston was right to say that in 1999 Britain was not outvoted on a single issue, but Germany was twice, France was three times and Italy was eight times.
	We are clear that more QMV, in the right areas, can work strongly in Britain's interest in the future and that is how we approached the negotiation on the Nice treaty. When we felt strongly that an issue was of such fundamental importance that the decision must remain in the UK, with this Government and this Parliament, we just said, "No, we will not agree to QMV." We made that clear to the House and to our EU partners even before we had begun the negotiations.
	We set out in advance the areas on which we would not agree to QMV. We said that we would not accept QMV in areas such as tax, social security, defence, border controls, treaty change or the Community budget. And nor did we. The UK veto remains on all of those issues.
	We firmly and successfully defended our interests as we saw them. Of course, that works both ways. We could have accepted QMV on some issues at Nice—such as on family law within article 65, which is the issue to which the hon. Member for Stone referred—but they were red line issues for other member states.
	We have heard several times today that Nice extends QMV in 31 articles of the treaties. That is true, and there are good reasons for all those changes. However, the Committee should consider how many times the article on appointing common foreign and security policy special representatives will be used compared with the number of times the articles that the Conservatives agreed should move to QMV under the Single European Act have already been used. The Committee could also compare the significance of moving decisions on consumer protection to QMV, as the Conservatives did at Maastricht, compared to moving to QMV for decisions on the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors, as we did at Nice.

John Bercow: Closer to home, does the Minister for Europe not recognise that the loss of the veto has already resulted in the imposition on this country of the information and consultation directive? The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) told the Trade and Industry Committee on 4 November 1998 that he would stop that directive. It is virulently opposed by the Federation of Small Businesses and will cost tens of thousands of small enterprises in this country dearly.

Peter Hain: That sounds like the scare stories put about before the 1997 general election, when we were told that the minimum wage would cause the loss of millions of jobs. Instead, 1 million new jobs were created under this Government. I went to the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg after the general election—at short notice, I might add—and was able to negotiate a better deal on that information and consultation directive so that it will be introduced over seven years and will not apply to companies with fewer than 50 workers. It will have little impact, contrary to what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggests.
	The debate is not about numbers, but about British interests. It is a shortsighted view to oppose QMV in principle, as the Conservatives do, and every one of the 31 moves to QMV that we agreed at Nice will be in Britain's interests. It is in Britain's interests to have QMV for industrial policy to increase competition, as we decided at Nice. Our companies do very well out of the single market.
	It is in Britain's interest to have QMV for international agreements on trade in services because our companies will benefit from the liberalisation that that is likely to offer. It is in the UK's interests to have QMV for the rules and procedures of the European Court of Justice because that will deliver more efficient procedures and speedier judgments to ensure that the EU's rules are respected.
	I could go on. The fact is that QMV works for Britain, which the Conservatives seem to have forgotten since they agreed to QMV in 42 articles or sub-articles under the Single European Act and Maastricht.

Alan Simpson: The Minister mentioned defending the national interest and the trade in services. I am pleased that he was not drawn into the game of playing one EU country off against another. My point is about the surrender of negotiating rights under QMV, in so far as that then transfers exclusive authority to negotiate on those issues to European Commissioners. The Minister will know that Pascal Lamy was keen to deny individual states the right to negotiate on trade in services—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.

Peter Hain: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Why do he and Opposition Members have so little confidence in Britain's ability to go to Europe and get a good deal? We have been consistently able to do that, but my hon. Friend, like Opposition Members, seems to suffer from an incredible inferiority complex about the strength of our arguments and our ability to win in Europe.
	The position of the Government is crystal clear: when QMV is in Britain's interests we will agree to it, and when it is not in Britain's interests we will not agree to it. It is as simple as that. The QMV provisions of the Nice treaty fully reflect that principle. That is why we strongly support the treaty, and why we reject the amendments.

William Cash: I must be very brief. The matters that have been discussed can be dealt with by renegotiation. It is essential that we solve the problem of QMV by rejecting it in all its aspects, except when it affects the people I described in my earlier speech. I am a member of the Child Abduction Committee, as set out in the Register of Members' Interests, and as such I am completely in favour of all the arguments put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends about QMV, with the exception of amendment No. 233.

Richard Spring: I agree with the Minister for Europe that we have heard several fine contributions tonight from both sides of the Committee. What has emerged clearly is how confused the Government are on QMV. They are schizoid. They say that the moves on QMV are hugely important and then, in the next breath, say that they are inconsequential. The Government cannot have it both ways. The real reason for that confusion is that the Government do not have a clear view of the architecture of Europe and the role of Britain in it. That is the heart of the problem.
	Before Nice, the former Foreign Secretary talked to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the 50 items on the French presidency's list of potential extensions to QMV, and he substantially ruled them out. In practice at Nice, the majority of the items on that list were eventually accepted in one form or another. Some were amended, but were still accepted. The rhetoric beforehand was entirely different from what actually happened.
	Before the last IGC, Ministers repeatedly listed six areas in which they would refuse to extend QMV—treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and own resources. However, Labour's recent election manifesto mentioned only two issues in relation to retaining the veto—tax and border controls. I tabled a written question specifically on that point and received a bland reply about the national interest. The increasing ambiguity on the subject is a hallmark of a Government who have no clear view on Britain's interests.
	We keep hearing the parrot cry about constructive engagement in Europe, but the Government cannot name a single power that has been returned to this national Parliament as a result of their negotiating skills in the past four years.
	The political integration process is going in one direction only. We want a modern, dynamic and successful EU that will incorporate all 27 or 28 countries. Qualified majority voting undermines that. Nice was not, in practice, about enlargement: its effect will be to slow down and damage enlargement.
	We may well wish to press new clause 11 to a Division in due course, but the debate has made it clear that the Government have undertaken no fresh thinking about our relationship with Europe. The evidence for that is the way in which they have given up our veto on crucial matters.
	We therefore have no hesitation about pressing the amendment to a Division this evening.
	It being Eight o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [28 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 349.

Question accordingly negatived.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on Education, the Ayes were 293, the Noes were 195, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the first motion on Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 482, the Noes were 10, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the second motion on Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 483, the Noes were 10, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Further considered.

John Wilkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 1),'.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 2),'.
	No. 42, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 3),'.
	No. 43, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 4),'.
	No. 44, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 5),'.
	No. 45, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 6),'.
	No. 46, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 7),'.
	No. 47, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 8),'.
	No. 48, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 9),'.
	No. 53, in page 1, line 9, after "(i)", insert—
	'Article 1 (other than paragraph 15),'.
	No. 78, in page 1, line 9, after "10", insert—
	'other than Article 2, paragraph 47'.
	No. 29, in page 1, line 12, after "occasion", insert—
	'except for Article 3, paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union in so far as that relates to the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy'.
	New clause 1—Special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy—
	'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 23(2) TEU, prior to a vote in the Council on the appointment of a special representative in the area of common foreign and security policy, Her Majesty's Government shall lay a report before Parliament setting out its preferred candidate for the post and shall lay a further report after the Council meeting if that candidate has not been adopted.'.
	New clause 2—International agreements under Article 24 TEU—
	'In relation to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Nice, amending Article 24 TEU, prior to casting a vote in the Council on any such international agreement, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a report setting out the implications for the United Kingdom of such an agreement.'.
	New clause 7—Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—
	'This Act will not come into effect until Her Majesty's Government has laid before Parliament a report showing the implications for the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the future functioning of these organisations, and for the United Kingdom's role therein, of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 17 TEU, and Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 25 TEU.'.
	New clause 8—Adoption of decisions under Article 17, paragraph 1, TEU—
	'For the purpose of Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Nice, the constitutional requirement of the United Kingdom before any decision under that paragraph (common defence) may be adopted by the United Kingdom shall be that the decision shall have been approved by an Act of Parliament.'.
	New clause 33—Eurojust—
	'This Act shall not come into force until Her Majesty's Government has obtained, and laid before Parliament, legal advice from the Attorney General on the effect on the criminal and judicial processes in the United Kingdom of Article 1, paragraph 8 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 31 TEU, as they relate to the provisions on Eurojust.'.

John Wilkinson: I speak in support of new clause 7 in particular, which is of great significance. Under the treaty of Nice nearly all the functions of Western European Union, as laid down in the treaty of Brussels and modified by the Paris protocols of 1954, are taken over by the European Union. Only two remain, and to some extent there is a third, residual, function as well. The first is the mutual defence obligation under article 5 of the treaty of Brussels. The second is the existence of the Assembly of Western European Union, which sits in Paris and of which I have had the honour to be a member for some twelve and a half years. The third is the residual function relating to armaments co-operation—the supervision of the West European Armaments Group.
	Article 5 of the Brussels treaty is the fundament and heart of European defence. It is the mutual security guarantee among the European members of the alliance to come to the defence of a member state if it is subject to aggression. It is an explicit, clear and total guarantee. It is a commitment to mutual defence, and nothing less. Interestingly, article 5 of the Washington treaty commits the signatories to consult in order to take appropriate action, or words to that effect, but article 5 of the Brussels treaty is firmer even than the Washington treaty in the obligations that it places on member states. I am pleased that this function, which is regarded as residual by European Union policy makers, is retained as Western European Union's raison d'être in its remaining form.
	The Parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union is an invaluable body. It is a forward-looking institution that has produced countless reports, often well ahead of their time. It brings together representatives of no fewer than 28 states, which is significant because it bridges the gap between the European Union and the wider Europe. The security of our continent has to be considered in that wider context.
	The aim of the treaty of Nice is to narrow European security and defence to member countries of the European Union. When a crisis emerges, they have an obligation to consult on what response should be taken. Of course, they voluntarily commit themselves to inviting other members of the alliance into the consultation procedure, but those countries are not part of the decision-making process to the same extent as the EU member states. European NATO countries such as Norway and Turkey and others that have more recently joined the alliance, such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, are therefore second-class citizens within the security apparatus of their own continent. It is a particularly grotesque fact that Norway and Turkey, which were literally in the front line against the former Soviet Union during the cold war inasmuch as they shared a boundary with the Soviet Union, should be deemed in any way to have a lesser share in decision making about the security of our continent.
	We would do well to bear in mind the fact that, apart from the virulent and dangerous phenomenon of terrorism from ETA in Spain and the Irish Republican Army and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, there is no immediate security threat within the EU itself. There are, however, grave developments of major consequence to the security of our continent of which we are all too well aware in parts of Europe that lie outside the EU. This is especially true in the Balkans, with the threat of civil war in Macedonia and the difficulties of maintaining an uneasy peace in Kosovo and of retaining a presence of peacekeeping troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The non-EU countries have just as great an interest in the security of our continent as do the EU nations.
	It is a thoroughly retrograde step to arrogate to the European Union a more exclusive right to a premier role in European security. Indeed, it is a somewhat perverse arrogation of duty to the EU nations, inasmuch as many of them are neutral states which throughout the long period of the cold war deliberately eschewed membership of NATO and of WEU. Furthermore, we are reminded of the implications of this fact by the outcome of the Irish referendum, which came about to some degree because a significant number of Irish electors believed that by virtue of the treaty of Nice they were giving away their treasured neutral status and that Irish forces might find themselves under British or NATO command. That was anathema to a significant minority of voters in Ireland who, with other strands of opinion, came together to form the majority who voted down the treaty of Nice.
	I urge Her Majesty's Government to think long and hard and to recognise the implications. Our Turkish friends, who are in a pivotal strategic situation, feel especially disadvantaged. It is from Turkish bases that British and other allied aircraft fly missions over northern Iraq under the policy of restraining Saddam Hussein in the no-fly zones. It is the Turks who, as the bridge between Asia and Europe, are vital in the Balkans. It is also the Turks who, with their perspective to the Caucasus and other zones of conflict and threat, are especially interested in those areas. To give the Turks a lesser status in decision making over European security, which is inherent in the Nice proposals, is anathema to the Turkish Government and they have not been able to acquiesce in that initiative.

Nick Palmer: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments on Turkey, I am sure that he is aware of Turkey's ambition to join the European Union. If it did so, presumably that objection would fall away. The reason that it is not altogether welcome at this stage has to do with the activities of the Turkish army, to which he refers so favourably. Does he feel that the development would be desirable?

John Wilkinson: There have always been difficulties in the body politic in Turkey. Wise commentators understand that. However, the interests of mutual security transcend those difficulties, do they not? It was on Turkish soil that NATO felt it necessary to deploy Jupiter ballistic missiles against the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Turkish troops were shoulder to shoulder with our forces and other allied troops maintaining the freedom of South Korea during the Korean war. We would be foolish to be as critical as the hon. Gentleman of internal affairs in Turkey to the extent of allowing that critical frame of mind to prejudice our appreciation of the security value which Turkey contributes to the continent of Europe.

Richard Spring: My hon. Friend always sets out his case clearly. He will know of the genuine anxieties in Turkey about the proposed new European defence arrangements. In the view of many Turkish commentators, the arrangements may cause the dismemberment of NATO and possibly the ultimate withdrawal of United States forces from Europe. Given Turkey's difficult geographical position, that is why the Turks are concerned. That is why we should express considerable support for Turkey's anxieties at this stage, as we consider the future of the European defence effort under the proposals emanating from Nice.

John Wilkinson: How right, as ever, is my hon. Friend, but I must address the point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), which I did not answer in full. Turkey may be knocking on the door of the European Union, but we should consider how long other European countries have waited—applicant nations supposedly in the forefront of eligibility for entry. They started knocking at the door at the beginning of the previous decade. They are still not yet inside the EU house. We do not know exactly when they will come in, and the Turks' admission may be postponed sine die. I can imagine all kinds of barrier being put in their way—especially the kind described by the hon. Gentleman relating to Turkish domestic politics and so on. That is not to take on board subtler and more implicit objections relating to Turkey's predominant Muslim faith, although it is of course a strictly secular nation.
	Let us not say, "Turkey may participate fully when it is a member of the European Union", because it may be an unconscionable time a-coming, and in the intervening years all sorts of crises may emerge which will necessarily involve Turkey and should involve it as a full front-line partner in the decision-making process. I say that advisedly, because what nation would wish its troops to be deployed in situations which may evolve into combat when it is not involved in decisions on those deployments from the outset?
	The question is crucial to the NATO context too, is it not, Mr. Lord? Under the proposals of the European security and defence initiative, the Europeans are to make good the deficiencies in their own capabilities. We all know about the headline goals that are supposed to be met by the year 2003 to allow 60,000 troops to be deployed in two months, with an armada of naval vessels and a panoply of air power over the top, but crucial capabilities will still depend on the United States: heavy lift, strategic reconnaissance, intelligence, smart munitions for all-weather operation and much else besides. Many of those capabilities will require the employment of US service personnel, because no one else has the training to operate the equipment concerned. What Congress of the United States will allow its personnel to be deployed in support of a European operation of which it is inherently critical? We are told that the Europeans will go it alone only if the Americans feel that they should not, or will not, take part; so there is an inherent veto from the United States from the outset over those key capabilities that are necessary to the success of any operation.
	Let us not delude ourselves about the Petersberg tasks. We all know that it is the small conflagrations—the situations which we suppose we can solve with a brush-fire type operation of peacekeeping and containment—that smoulder and ignite into a major conflagration, which involves the deployment of large numbers of forces with supporting services. That is what has happened in the Balkan wars until now, and we cannot assume that things will be different in future.
	We cannot assume that the concept of the Petersberg tasks—of providing the inventory of capabilities and the complement of units up to the 60,000—will be confined to the limited operations for which the Labour spokesmen, the drafters of the Nice treaty, designed it.

William Cash: I am much persuaded by my hon. Friend's arguments. Does he accept that it is impossible to sustain the distinction between peacemaking under the present arrangements in the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and the previous understanding of Petersberg tasks? Under Petersberg tasks, stealth bombs and smart bombs were used, and there was a full-scale war in the Balkans. It is unworkable for this matter to be dealt with using vague wording. It is obviously a movement towards a European army and all the support services, as my hon. Friend said.
	It is also deeply worrying to discover, by tracing through the complicated procedures described, that qualified majority voting is involved. It is absolutely impossible to imagine that anyone would have any proper command and control system in such circumstances.

John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is very wise. I shall not take up all the points that he makes. Suffice it to say that I find one feature particularly perplexing and deeply worrying. I cannot comprehend what benefit is construed from the duplication of military and political staffs between NATO and the European Union. Those who manage a crisis want one clear chain of command and, above all, one set of analysts and one set of staff specialists; otherwise, there will be two interpretations of the crisis as it develops, one by NATO staffs and one by the European Union staffs, and who will know which should predominate? There will be bitter conflicts between the two.
	I am reading the late Robert Rhodes James's book on the Gallipoli campaign, which describes the confusion between the military staffs under Hamilton and the naval staffs under De Robeck. What did we then get in the Balkans? The biggest allied tragedy in joint operations that occurred in the 20th century, even allowing for Dieppe. There is a serious possibility of delay, confusion and even conflict and recrimination between the two sets of military political staffs—those in NATO and those in the European Union. I do not see how the cause of European security will be advanced thereby.

Menzies Campbell: I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly recognise his expertise in this field, based as it is on much practical experience. Is it not clear that there is increasing reluctance on Capitol Hill to commit American forces on the ground in Europe? If such is to be the future attitude of the House of Representatives and the Senate, does it not make sense for the Europeans to have a capability to deal with issues such as those in Kosovo or other parts of the Balkans, in circumstances where we know that we cannot automatically expect the Americans to come to Europe?

John Wilkinson: Of course I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no need to create such a European Union architecture for the evolution of an autonomous security and defence policy just to achieve the goals that we all know need to be met.
	As with NATO, the Western European Union's great strength is that it is a free association of sovereign, independent states, which for their common good came together to work for their mutual security. This approach will not exist in the EU because there is a political dynamic and a political objective to create a European army, to use the expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
	That policy involves a capability for autonomous action on the part of the EU, per se, as an embryonic state, ultimately to give it the characteristics of a fully fledged state. The EU has much of the other apparatus, but it has not yet been fully put in place. Let the Europeans do their best to build up their capability, but they do not need to abolish most of the functions of WEU and subsume them within the EU and to create an architecture that competes with NATO.
	It is noteworthy, Sir Michael—forgive me for downgrading you most unworthily and inappropriately in the nomenclature which I used earlier—that one of the noblest features of the modernisation and transformation of NATO has been the partnership for peace programme, whereby the countries of central and eastern Europe, which were formerly our adversaries, have been taken into the bosom of the western defence community in NATO and helped to bring their armed forces under civilian, democratic control, thus learning how to work under democratic Governments, how to harmonise their procedures and operational methods with those of the NATO alliance and how to exercise together, breaking down barriers and becoming all part of one happy family.
	That has worked very well, but the EU's objective is just the opposite; it is to keep at arm's length and to exclude to some degree those who are not members of this sacred union, which is acquiring a political dimension and capability for autonomous defence action. This is thoroughly retrograde. It is recreating divisions which we hoped had ceased to exist in our continent, with the ending of the cold war and the dismantlement of the Berlin wall. So new clause 7 is entirely wise. A report on all those implications should be put before Parliament, but of course we have had nothing of the kind and I think that thoroughly remiss.
	In conclusion, I shall argue this final point: there is much talk about how democratic scrutiny of European defence will be maintained on a transnational basis. In the current review of whether the European Parliament should assume that function, whether a new assembly should be created or whether we should use the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, I urge that we use the Assembly. I say that not because I am particularly parti pris but because the WEU Assembly actually works well, and it does so because of its wide membership. All the countries—whether EU nations, NATO nations outside the EU, or countries from further east whose representatives work alongside us—are essentially on one footing. Our Parliament has the right to question Defence Ministers and an obligation to vote funds for defence. Other Parliaments have the ability to modify defence budgets, and it is from the ranks of national parliamentarians that national Defence Ministers are drawn.
	The European Parliament, by contrast, is déraciné—it does not have the same roots or legitimacy; it does not even have the same treaty competence. I cannot comprehend why we should arrogate the oversight function to an Assembly which is more remote from the peoples of western Europe. We risk creating a hybrid entity with no clear mandate or treaty responsibility, which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union has. Whatever the outcome of the debate on European security and defence, I hope that we will maintain transnational democratic parliamentary scrutiny, as provided by WEU.

Nick Palmer: I want to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ruislip- Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I agree that it is probably correct that the European force is unlikely to take a controversial role without the consent of the United States. He referred to a veto, although I am not sure that I would express it like that. However, a major commitment in the real world, even under the Petersberg tasks, is unlikely to be carried out in the teeth of opposition from Washington.
	Involvement is much more likely if the United States decides, for whatever reason, that it does not want to commit ground forces but has no objection to—perhaps even welcomes—an active European commitment. I respect the hon. Gentleman's historical view and think that he will agree that for many years, since the first world war, Congress has been sceptical about the willingness of European countries to put their troops where their mouths are and commit themselves to concrete engagements instead of relying on US troops to rush over and bail us out when we have a problem. Many members of Congress would have put it that brutally. Although opinions vary in the US just as they do here, a few people on both sides of Congress welcome the prospect of the Europeans taking seriously the job of pursuing peacekeeping and other Petersberg tasks independently, in consultation with our American allies.
	We are all aware that the debate on security is a proxy for the broader debate on the direction of the EU. It would be illusory to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not partly motivated in his criticism by his aversion to the idea that the EU might move beyond what it already is and begin to resemble a joint state or entity.
	If we have a common foreign and security policy, it is difficult to argue that we should have no capability to implement even the smallest, most peaceful activity that comes under that heading under our own steam. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would argue that a common foreign and security policy is essentially wrong-headed and that we do not need the EU to develop such a policy. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I think that he would regard that as a dangerous development. The debate in which we are currently engaged is inextricably linked to the question of whether we favour the whole concept of a common foreign and security policy.
	If we were to reject such a policy, it would be logical to reject the provision before us and to welcome new clause 7. However, to do that would be to reject the serious commitment of the EU to maintain peace on our borders. I appeal to hon. Members' sense of history. The history of Europe does not support the idea that it is sensible for western European countries not to take an active interest in events on the fringes—an interest that extends to having a joint foreign and security policy that affects how they behave, and includes a willingness to commit forces to reinforce the peaceful objectives of that policy.

Julian Brazier: The Opposition entirely endorse the very striking point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but it does not follow that we need a separate structure to achieve those ends. There is a danger. How do we avoid becoming sucked into an effort for which we do not have the capability through a structure that was not designed for the purpose?

Nick Palmer: That is a reasonable point: we must be careful not to become involved in a peacekeeping operation that develops into a war-fighting operation when we do not have the infrastructure to support such an action. That challenge will be faced by the EU as it develops its new capability. However, with respect, one cannot have it both ways: if we want significant war-fighting operations to be reserved for NATO, as most hon. Members on both sides of the House do, we cannot escape the fact that we will have to draw the line somewhere and acknowledge that certain operations are beyond our capability.

Mark Hendrick: Given the problems that developed in Bosnia and subsequently in Kosovo, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we have a rapid reaction force that can act quickly? Such a force is not a European army: it will not be a standing army, but one that comprises volunteer forces from member states, so it cannot be considered a Euro-army, as the Opposition argue. Does he also agree that, with only a handful of staff based in Brussels, the WEU hardly has the administrative power or clout needed to do what must be done by the EU, given the EU's political clout and the structures that already exist within Europe?

Nick Palmer: I am grateful for all those points. The more we can define the rapid reaction force's precise role and objectives in our debate and the broader debate across Europe, the more effective it will be. I accept the point made by several hon. Members that it is necessary to attempt a precise definition; otherwise, in practice, we will have problems in the grey areas. However, that does not mean that we should not make the attempt; we must do so because, as my hon. Friend said, the force is essential for the security of the EU.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is typically generous in giving way. He got to the nub of the problem when he talked about reserving serious war fighting for NATO and confining the work of the EU force to crisis management. The flaw at the heart of that argument is that there is no way of having such a fire break. The major wars that have been fought in history have, as often as not—indeed, more often than not—started when attempts at crisis management spiralled out of control. Creating a structure outside NATO reopens the deadly prospect of war breaking out in Europe without the Americans being involved from the outset. That is the nub of the problem and the cancer at the heart of the project.

Nick Palmer: I am afraid that I do not agree, as the position is the reverse. There are a number of serious situations, such as the recent conflict in the Balkans, that go beyond the normal scope of diplomatic endeavours and cannot be tackled within the broader ambit of NATO, which would effectively require a full-blooded commitment from the United States. The USA is not willing to give that commitment routinely or intervene regularly in what it may see as every brush fire or little conflict in parts of Europe, so we need an alternative option. I accept that we must be careful not to get involved in something that is beyond the scope that we have set, but if we do not have that option at all, it is likely that serious situations will be allowed to get more serious because of the lack of a relatively limited response to deal with them. Recent history in Europe, notably in the Balkans, provides support for that belief.
	Finally, in response once more to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Wilkinson—I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman and his constituency have become synonymous over the years, and I mean the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood—I listened with surprise to his belief that the WEU is less remote to the peoples of western Europe than is the European Parliament. I would have agreed if he had said that there is a problem with democracy and with people identifying with the institutions of the EU. We all recognise that there is a democratic deficit and limited interest in the European Parliament. As we know, the turnout for European elections does not even reach the dizzy heights that we achieved in the general election this year. However, I wonder what percentage of our constituents have ever heard of the WEU, let alone regard it as the less remote body that represents them on those issues.

John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is most courteous and indulgent. May I clarify the distinction? The membership of the WEU Assembly is drawn entirely from national parliamentarians, who sit on the defence and foreign affairs committees of their Parliaments and take part in all the defence debates, the procurement process and the voting of funds. It is from their ranks that national Defence Ministers are drawn. The European parliamentarians in Strasbourg or Brussels often do not even have proper constituencies and are seldom seen in them, let alone in their national Parliaments, lobbying or trying to influence events.

Nick Palmer: The belief that democracy is best served by indirect representation through national parliamentarians is most strongly held by national parliamentarians. I do not believe that the man or woman in the street would consider that a particularly impressive way of representing his or her views at European level. The hon. Gentleman says that the European Parliament is not perfect, and I accept that.
	I am using my freedom of the Back Benches to take a somewhat critical view of the WEU, which I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues would not wish to do. The hon. Gentleman suggests in new clause 7 that the proposals could have grave consequences for the WEU. That is not necessarily the case, as long as the membership of the European Union is only a subset of the broad scope of nations across Europe. As long as that is the case, the WEU will provide a contact point for many countries that are not, for the next few years, likely to be members of the European Union. That is a healthy balance.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman considers me a raving Europhile. I will not conceal from him my hope that there will come a time when the membership of the EU and the current membership of the WEU are not all that different. At that stage, we might reconsider the matter, but for now his fears do not seem to be justified.

Richard Spring: Several issues are covered under this group of amendments, as the Nice treaty makes a number of changes to the treaty on European Union. I shall touch on just a few of those issues.
	Amendment No. 40 concerns the so-called early warning mechanism agreed at Nice. Under the revised article 7 of the treaty on European Union, the treaty of Nice allows the EU to "address appropriate recommendations" to a country if there is a risk—I repeat, a risk—of a serious breach by a member state of the fundamental principles listed in article 6(1) of the treaty on European Union: liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
	Does the Minister agree that that runs the risk of damaging and divisive interference in the internal affairs of member states, on the basis of mere speculation? Of course, as the House knows, under article 7 countries can already take action if there is a "serious and persistent breach" of those principles by a member state.
	How exactly will the new provision work? It is no secret that it was formulated in response to recent events in Austria. Presumably, when they signed up to the article, Ministers had an idea when it might be used, so perhaps they will now tell us what the intention is. Would the provision have been exercised in the case of Haider's inclusion in the Government of Austria? If so, what would the recommendations to the Government have been, and when, if ever, would the mechanism have come to an end?
	How will the article 6(1) principles be assessed, both under the new mechanism and under the existing article 7 provision? In particular, will the Minister guarantee that those principles, which include respect for human rights, will not be interpreted through the prism of the charter of fundamental rights? For example, article 19 of the charter states:
	"No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty".
	If the charter will affect national law only in so far as it implements Union law, what is the point of that particular article?
	Let me cite one example. Will the Minister assure the House that the provision that the Government agreed at Nice will not be used to decide that a member state that intends to extradite a suspected murderer to the United States is in danger of contravening article 6(1) principles and will therefore be given recommendations by QMV, under revised article 7 TEU? I am sorry that those are technical points, but they must be explored.
	The second issue that I want to speak about is the European defence identity. We heard an absolutely outstanding speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip–Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I was especially pleased that he referred in some detail to Turkey, which feels concerned about the recent developments in Nice. As the House will appreciate, although European defence policy is not contained in the treaty, some changes were agreed to pave the way for it.
	First, references to the Western European Union in article 17 TEU have been deleted. Amendment No. 41 would deal with that problem by removing paragraph 2 from article 1 of the treaty. Secondly, article 25 TEU, as amended by Nice, provides an enhanced role for the Political and Security Committee. Under the authorisation of the Council, the committee will exercise
	"political control and strategic direction of the crisis management operations"
	and may, with Council authorisation, take decisions in that context.
	Finally, declaration 1 of the final act of the intergovernmental conference, which does not form part of the Bill, relates to European security and defence policy, which it says will become operational quickly. It foreshadows a decision to be taken by the European Council no later than the Brussels summit.
	New clauses 7 and 8 would ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny of those developments. New clause 7 would require a report to be submitted to Parliament on their effects on NATO and the WEU, and new clause 8 would require a Bill to be introduced before any decision on common defence is taken.
	The House has debated those issues several times, and I do not intend to cover familiar ground for too long, but I should like to make some specific points in relation to new clauses 7 and 8. The background to the debate is that the Conservatives strongly support greater European defence co-operation and a stronger European commitment to NATO. Indeed, it was a Conservative Government who started that process. We genuinely believe, however, that the European defence policy that is currently being developed represents an evolution towards a European army in all but name. The documents agreed at Nice and elsewhere make it clear that the force will exist outside NATO, which flatly contradicts repeated assurances made by Ministers and confirms the major reservations of the Americans. We believe that the structures agreed at Nice will weaken and undermine NATO.
	I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, how does he reconcile the removal of references to the WEU in article 17 TEU and the decline of the WEU with what the Prime Minister said to the House four years ago? He said that
	"getting Europe's voice more clearly heard in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
	Does the Minister accept that although changes to the WEU were agreed at Maastricht, it was developed as the forum for expressing European defence interests within NATO and was formally recognised as such by the EU? The idea was that the WEU was to be balanced halfway between NATO and the EU. Its development posed no threat to NATO and all the units available to it were either to be borrowed from NATO, or if they were outside NATO they were available to it in an emergency.
	Does the Minister not accept that the establishment under the Nice treaty of the Political and Security Committee is another sign that, by creating new, stand-alone EU structures, the European security and defence policy duplicates existing NATO structures? What is the point of doing that unless it is to rival NATO, with all the consequences that flow from that?
	Despite assurances from the Prime Minister that planning for military operations would happen in NATO, the Nice accords and the statements of the Secretary of State for Defence make it crystal clear that many operations can and will be planned outside NATO. National headquarters can be used under the auspices of the EU. The Nice accords further make it clear that there is no onus on the EU to involve NATO at any stage of a crisis. It is evident that a defence entity that is a clear rival to NATO is being established. It could undermine the Atlantic alliance and the United States' commitment to Europe's security.
	The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) made a thoughtful contribution. I emphasise to him that the Americans want burden sharing, and they are not getting it. Our anxieties are shared by the head of the EU's military staff, Major General Messervy Whiting, who said earlier this year that the EU's rapid reaction force would start to compete with NATO when it acquired a full range of strategic military assets. He said:
	"In the early years, we'll be looking at things below the NATO threshold, things NATO doesn't do, like disaster relief and evacuation of citizens. In due course, once our collective capabilities are developed and we have strategic transport, the EU should be in a position to go higher . . . At that point, there will have to be a critical conversation between the European Union and NATO over who takes on what".
	In the light of such issues, we have tabled new clauses 7 and 8. One attempts to provide for analysis of the developments that I have outlined and their effect on NATO and WEU. The other proposes a mechanism to provide parliamentary scrutiny by means of a Bill. The changes have serious implications for the future of NATO, and I trust that the Minister for Europe will understand the need to be open about them so that the House can hold a rational debate on the matter. The future of NATO and our relationship with it are crucial to the continued security and stability of Europe.
	Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and new clause 33 deal with Eurojust. After the Tampere summit in October 1999, when Eurojust and related measures were discussed, the Conservative party made it clear that we supported moves to improve co-ordination. We do not intend to oppose Eurojust if co-operation and co-ordination are involved. However, we seek a guarantee that we shall not go beyond that, and that the Bill does not pave the way for harmonisation. New clause 33 would provide for a report from the Attorney-General about the implications of Eurojust for the criminal and judicial processes of the United Kingdom.
	Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to update hon. Members about developments on Eurojust since the Select Committee on European Scrutiny published its sixth report in February. The Committee welcomed the Government's view that they could not accept any wording on Eurojust's remit that accorded the Commission any operational role in national investigations or prosecutions. However, it expressed anxiety about what is described as ambiguity in the draft documents, which related to the amount of influence that Eurojust is expected to exercise.
	The report stated:
	"The requirement that a prosecuting authority in a Member State should be obliged to account to Eurojust for its reasons for not complying with a request to prosecute, or for not complying with a request to co-ordinate prosecutions with those of another Member State, suggests to us that Eurojust is intended to have some influence over prosecution discretions; otherwise there would seem to be little point in asking for the reasons to be stated".
	I trust that the Minister can reassure us on the latest discussions.

Angus Robertson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why there is no recognition in the proposal of the fact that Scotland has its own legal and judicial system? Why has that fact not been incorporated in the amendment?

Richard Spring: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought that point to my attention. I am sure that we shall bear it in mind, as will the Government.
	Ministers should act to allay the concern in some quarters that, while initially promising nothing more than co-operation between prosecuting authorities, Eurojust may be the first step towards having an EU public prosecutor able to conduct investigations outside our legal system and corpus juris—the EU body of criminal law. For example, Commissioner Vitorino has said:
	"A provisional judicial co-operation unit, which will serve as a kind of laboratory, enabling us to conceive and simultaneously test Eurojust, will take up its work soon. We may in the longer term also agree on the concept of centralised prosecution as a further logical step along the path of co-operation and co-ordination within the Union, at least for a number of sectors of particular European relevance."
	The explanatory statement of a report voted for by Labour and Liberal Democrat MEPs in November, the Gebhardt report, said:
	"Eurojust must . . . be so constituted that it can be regarded as a forerunner of a future European public prosecution service designed to strengthen the European Union's judicial dimension in relation to criminal law. But institutionalisation alone is not enough. The Council must draw up, in co-operation with the European Parliament and the Commission, appropriate rules of law on the basis of which Eurojust will be able to operate. Parliament has already indicated the form that such a 'corpus juris' might take . . . The acquisition of such a body of law would enable the European Union to clearly counter the charge that its structures were undemocratic because it did not possess an independent legislature, executive and judiciary with counterbalancing powers, the hallmark of all democratic societies."
	We are seeking important reassurances from the Government on those issues. We need to be assured that, by providing treaty articles in this area, EU leaders are not paving the way to moving beyond mere co-operation towards the kind of development—such as the creation of a European public prosecutor—for which many in the EU have been calling for some time.
	Amendments Nos. 45 and 48 also raise important issues relating to enhanced co-operation in the second and third pillars. We are particularly sympathetic to amendment No. 48, which concerns the loss of the so-called "emergency brake" veto in the justice and home affairs pillar. However, we will be discussing the principle of enhanced co-operation later in the proceedings, and I intend to address the veto issue in relation to its loss in the Community pillar at that time.
	I apologise to the Minister of State for asking a series of very specific questions, but I hope that he will recognise that these are genuine concerns, and that he will address them during the course of the Committee proceedings.

Mark Hendrick: I shall start by saying how much some Labour Members deplore the scaremongering of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and some of his colleagues when they say that the treaty threatens NATO in some way. The European rapid reaction force will give the European Union the capacity to conduct military operations in response to international crises when NATO is not, and does not wish to be, engaged. I find it incredible that the Opposition should want Europe to have a capability to intervene in crises across Europe, yet are unwilling to give it the means to do so. I also find incredible the suggestion that the Western European Union might serve as the body capable of co-ordinating such operations, because it has a staff of less than 100, based in Brussels.

Julian Lewis: I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point of the Opposition's objections. What we object to has nothing to do with the capability of European countries to defend Europe. It has to do with the structures that organise and apply those capabilities. We want European defence capabilities to be organised and applied within the structure of NATO. Under the treaty, we are getting new structures without capabilities, whereas we need new capabilities within existing tried and tested structures such as NATO.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, if the United States does not wish to be involved, we need a coherent political structure that can direct operations, and the only political structure that can do that is the European Union. The Western European Union has very little clout, so it is bizarre to suggest that such a structure should be built around the WEU when most of the countries involved are members of the EU. That says more about the Opposition's attitude to the EU than it does about the capability of the WEU to conduct such operations.
	The range of potential missions is described as humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace making. For many months during the war in Bosnia, the United States was unwilling to get involved in a European conflict, and that unwillingness led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Bosnian people. The ethnic cleansing in that part of the world was an atrocity that had not been witnessed since the second world war, and the unwillingness of the Americans to get involved because they were reluctant for any of their troops to come back in body bags led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is really testing the patience of the House. Is it not inconceivable for him to present this argument when it is perfectly clear that it was impossible for the EU to generate anything in the way of heavy lift or the response that was required to deal with the catastrophe in Bosnia? The hon. Gentleman is talking total rubbish because he has not referred to the increase in function, the shift away from NATO and the absolute refusal of member states to provide the resources that were necessary. In fact, the Germans are continually decreasing their defence capability. The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish and, most unusually, he is making a fool of himself.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I hope that he will not pull his punches so much in future.
	The ink was not dry on the common foreign and security policy when the conflict in Bosnia broke out, and it is quite clear that the Americans did not want to get involved. For many years now, they have made it plain that they are not prepared to spend American tax dollars on defending European nation states. Now that Europe has produced a constructive set of proposals, many of which the United States accepts, we are hearing arguments—not from Colin Powell or any other American representative—about possible Turkish opposition to the proposal. Indeed, the outcome of the Irish referendum has been put forward as the reason why Europe should not move in this direction. To anyone who says that it leaves out Turkey or Norway, I would say that I certainly do not remember Turkey or Norway arguing for strong intervention in Bosnia or expressing any great wish to sort out the problems there.

John Wilkinson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Danes are not contributing any forces at all to the so-called rapid reaction force?

Mark Hendrick: I am not here to answer for the Danes, but to speak for the interests of the British people and my constituents in Preston, so I shall not go down that route. The Opposition constantly refer to Denmark and Ireland as though they were the most significant and weighty states in the EU.

Angus Robertson: Perhaps one of the advantages of the European rapid reaction force is that it brings in countries that are not involved in NATO, such as Austria, Finland and Sweden. That may benefit everybody in Europe.

Mark Hendrick: I agree. More nations are involved than would have been had any other method been adopted. Had the treaty not been agreed, the Opposition would not have made any constructive proposals to deal with any of the crises that may arise in Europe as a result of the current political problems.
	For the benefit of Opposition Members, I must explain that the treaty does not involve the creation of a European army. The commitment of national resources by member states to any operations will be based on their sovereign decision as nation states, not the decision of the European Commission or the European Parliament. The European Union has not been given a role in collective or territorial defence, which remains the sole responsibility of NATO, and anybody who, like the hon. Member for West Suffolk, says that the proposals in some way rival NATO obviously does not understand the treaty and has not read it very well. The treaty acknowledges that NATO remains the base of its members' collective defence and will continue to play an important role in crisis management.
	European military capabilities must be strengthened as a priority. The Euro-army is the latest Conservative anti-European myth. The proposal is for a stronger Britain and a stronger Europe, and the Opposition know it.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has been exceptionally generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. He says that there is no conflict between the rapid reaction force and NATO, but if the rapid reaction force is not to have standing forces of its own—which it is not—and if it is only to deploy forces that are normally allocated to NATO, what would happen if it were engaged in a large-scale peacekeeping operation, taking forces away from NATO, and another crisis arose in which NATO and the United States wished to act, but found that their forces were depleted because they were engaged in some escapade with the rapid reaction force? Which of the two crises would come out on top? Is all this necessary, when if the force remained within the structure of NATO, all such matters would be resolved internally?

Mark Hendrick: The number of troops committed to any such operation is likely to be relatively small in relation to NATO's total capability.

Julian Lewis: Sixty thousand.

Mark Hendrick: Yes—relatively small.
	There is nothing to stop two crises arising at the same time. Presumably, NATO would have the capability to deal with the situation. The hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is unlikely, but if that happened, it could still be dealt with under the current system.
	I want to deal with a few of the myths. Opposition Members say that European defence will weaken NATO and undermine relations with the United States. Better European capabilities will strengthen the contribution of European nations to NATO as well as to the EU. Most of the Opposition's arguments are not really about defence capability or our ability to deal with conflict—although their proposals would inhibit that—but about a political objection.
	Let us consider what Opposition Members have said in the past. The Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), said:
	"The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
	Sir Malcolm Rifkind said:
	"The recent NATO summit agreed that European allies should take a greater responsibility for common security and defence. This will be achieved through the development of a European security and defence identity expressed through the WEU, which will in turn strengthen the European pillar of the alliance."
	Statements from a previous Secretary of State for Defence and the current Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman fly in the face of what has been said by Opposition Members today.
	I repeat that what has been said today has nothing to do with the defence of the EU, or NATO; it has a lot to do with the opposition to the proposals for the further development of the EU.

Menzies Campbell: I shall address my brief remarks to the issues raised so eloquently by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I did not entirely agree with him, but I most certainly did agree with some portions of his thoughtful speech. He struck a chord with me when he spoke about defence expenditure, because there will be no capability unless there is defence expenditure.
	If we cast our minds back to the general election, none of the three major parties committed itself in the course of this Parliament to any material increase in defence expenditure. There is a certain amount of creative accounting going on around Europe that justifies some officials saying that defence expenditure is going up. I do not believe that, because the way in which expenditure is allocated is often done differently in different countries. The real question is not what is being spent, but what we are getting for the money that is being spent; to use an expression that was current about 10 or 15 years ago, how big a bang are we getting for the buck?
	If there is a strong European security and defence policy, it will strengthen NATO; if there is a weak policy, it will most certainly weaken NATO. Those of us who support a European security and defence policy have an overwhelming obligation to ensure that what is put in place does not damage or affect NATO's capability. We must also argue the case as persuasively as we can—within our parties and this House, and outside—to ensure that sufficient expenditure is made available to make a European security and defence policy a reality.
	Respectfully, I say to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) that to characterise the problems in the Balkans as being related entirely to US intransigence is not to take a sufficiently broad view of what took place, especially in the period when Bosnia was the source of such difficulty. I have been critical of the fact that the US has been unwilling to commit troops, but we must recall that there was a critical—to use the word in its alternative sense—meeting of the EU here in London at which a lot of warm words were expressed and commitments given. However, there was then no follow-through action or deployment of the necessary forces.
	Another element of the Bosnian situation that cannot be avoided is that the mandates handed down by the UN Security Council, and the terms upon which the UN was first operating in Bosnia, were, to say the least, ambiguous. We need a longer historical perspective on Bosnia to see why the international community found it so difficult to deal with something that, as the commemoration today in Srebrenica reminds us forcefully, was horrific to an extent that people thought we were unlikely to experience after the end of the second world war.
	On the relationship between NATO and the EU, I adhere strongly to a view that I have persistently expressed in the House; persistently is perhaps the right adverb to use. What we need is a formal protocol between NATO and the EU in which NATO is given a formal right of first refusal. The annexe to the Nice treaty talks about where NATO is not involved. On that point also, I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip–Northwood. We need to locate operational planning in NATO, and I would go further and argue that strategic planning should also be located in NATO.
	I part company with the hon. Gentleman on a further point and I shall try to explain my logic. If NATO decided not to become involved in an issue, it would be standing back not only militarily, but politically. If the EU, in furtherance of the provisions we are discussing, decided that it would proceed militarily, it would make no sense to look for political direction of that EU activity from NATO. Some form of political direction must be available on occasions when NATO declines to become involved. We need a structural element in addition to what we have at the moment.
	On the issue of scrutiny, we have heard much special pleading for the Western European Union in the House in the past 18 months, but if we are to scrutinise the provisions before us, the place for that scrutiny is in this domestic Parliament. I feel strongly that decisions about sending young men and—increasingly—women to war should be taken in a forum in which I, as an elected representative with a front-line air base in my constituency, have the right to hold Ministers to account for their decisions. Whatever the merits of the WEU or the European Parliament, I am not willing to cede my responsibility for that scrutiny to a body that has no real constituency—as the hon. Gentleman suggested of the European Parliament—or is essentially an appointed body like the WEU, however distinguished it might be. I disagree with the suggestion—made, I think by the Prime Minister in Warsaw—that one possible feature of a second chamber for the European Parliament would be the exercise of scrutiny on defence matters, because that scrutiny should rest with the House of Commons.

John Wilkinson: Is not the point that while ultimate responsibility for sending British troops to war remains with the House, we nevertheless benefit from the fact that our colleagues in the House and in the other place are members of the WEU? In that body, which provides another forum for transnational responsibility in Europe, our colleagues are informed of the obligations, stresses, strains and problems of other member countries that impinge on our national security decisions. The WEU can exert a common will to persuade other Parliaments to do things to our mutual benefit, such as creating heavy lift and other capabilities.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman and I may be moving, slowly but inexorably, towards agreement on that subject. It may be a question of emphasis, but the WEU and other such bodies—I speak as someone who has been a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for some 10 years—have a tremendous role to play in allowing us to understand the principles and priorities of the other countries involved. However, formal scrutiny is our responsibility and it should not be ceded.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: No, I wish to make progress because I know that others wish to speak, including the Minister.
	I believe that Turkey should be a member of the European Union—a view not always popular in my party—but it has considerable obstacles to overcome, not least in the conduct of its police and its army and in relation to the universal recognition of human rights. However, Turkey overplayed its hand at first, because it appeared to believe that it could influence the opinion of the EU on its application for membership by displaying a mailed fist on the proposals for the European security and defence policy.
	I shall end by referring to new article 17.2 of Command Paper 5090, which is the document that sets out the treaty. It states that the policy
	"shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation . . . under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with a common security and defence policy established within that framework."
	That shows that NATO is recognised in that part of the treaty. Moreover, article 17.4 states:
	"The provisions of this Article shall not prevent the development of closer cooperation between two or more Member States on a bilateral level, in the framework of the Western European Union . . . and NATO, provided such cooperation does not run counter to or impede that provided for in this Title."
	Those provisions show that the primacy of NATO is not affected, and that the capacity for bilateral arrangements between two or more states in the WEU and NATO is also provided for.
	Finally, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—east is east, and west is west, and ne'er the twain shall meet—spoke of the deadly prospect that a war might break out and that the Americans might not be willing to come to Europe. That is a prospect that we must consider, as it is more possible now than for a long time. However, a further deadly prospect exists: that if we do not have in place the arrangements that we are discussing, a war may break out in Europe, the Americans might decline to come and the Europeans could be left unable to do anything about it.
	As long as the money is spent and the capability is achieved, I believe that we can make a contribution to NATO, and offer the capacity for the European Union to operate when NATO declines. That is why I believe that these provisions are worthy of support.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. William Cash.

William Cash: I am sorry, Sir Michael, for not rising immediately to my feet, but I was distracted by a representative of the usual channels. My eagerness to engage in the debate means that such tardiness is very unusual for me.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip–Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has already made it clear that the amendment deals with a matter of immense importance. It is a matter that I have raised with the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary, now the Leader of the House, several times. At issue is the movement towards a European army represented by the establishment of the rapid reaction force.
	My noble Friend Lord Tebbit used to be the Member of Parliament for Chingford. He and I opposed the then Conservative Government—our own Government—over the Maastricht treaty, and we made compelling speeches on the treaty's defence implications. Those speeches have subsequently proved justified.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood also made a valuable and important contribution in the Maastricht debates. Indeed, he and my wife managed to transport another hon. Member—whose name must remain undisclosed—away from a secret location a few hundred yards from here and into the Lobby to vote, with the result that we won a crucial Division. I therefore owe my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for his sterling—indeed, Special Air Service—assistance at that time.
	Let there be no doubt that the genesis of where we are now is the Maastricht treaty, which contained provisions that we do not need to go into, and indeed cannot go into today. It was followed by Amsterdam, whose provisions were negotiated by yet another Conservative Government and handed over to the present Government under the chairmanship of another distinguished Minister for Europe. I do not think that I need to mention his name, but he was one of the revolving chairmen of the Westendorp group.
	I wrote a pamphlet in reply to the White Paper that Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the said Minister for Europe produced. It was called the "Blue Paper"; it was 25 or 30 pages long and took the White Paper apart line by line, because I felt so strongly that the Government were going in the wrong direction.
	The said Minister for Europe is currently competing strongly for the attention of other Conservative Members of Parliament. I have a letter written in 1995 from yet another contender for the Conservative party leadership, in which he set out his reply to me with respect to the questions that are before us under the Nice treaty. It shows the evolution of the thought processes and policy making en route to the present debate.
	The letter went, "Thank you for your letter" I am paraphrasing a little bit [Laughter] "about the mischievous piece in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 November, which you also raised with me in the House last week." So, it is all on the record. He went on, "I trust I set your mind at rest then"—some chance—"I and the Government remain totally opposed to any suggestion of a separate European army. Nothing that Malcolm Rifkind and I agreed to in Madrid moved us one jot in that direction. As for our memorandum on European defence which the Prime Minister launched in March, the article misses the point completely. The essence of our position is that the defence of Europe is founded on NATO. NATO also has a role in smaller scale missions like peacekeeping—witness Bosnia."
	Now the House may understand my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. My point has always been that keeping the peace in places such as Bosnia and making the peace according to the Petersberg tasks—on which I have tested the Foreign Secretary on many occasions—cannot be distinguished from the greater development not merely of a rapid reaction force but the panoply of warfare. Such equipment was exemplified by the stealth bombers, smart bombs and heavy-lift operations provided by the United States under the umbrella of NATO, although attempts were made to claim that such action had been carried out by a chameleon of the Western European Union.
	The letter continued that it was unreasonable to expect the North Americans always to want to get involved in such smaller scale missions, such as peacekeeping, and that that was where WEU came in. It stated, "It cannot really do the job at present, so we want to make it more capable, but it has no military forces separate from NATO, nor is it subordinated to the EU. That is how we want to keep it. Hardly a slippery slope to federalism, I think. Yours ever."
	The significance of that is that I argued in the House that it was a slippery slope to federalism. Now that we have the Nice treaty, I think that I can reasonably say that the predictions made in those days of rebellion by me and my hon Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Ruislip- Northwood about what would happen after Maastricht demonstrate that we are now in the business of having a European defence capacity.
	We could call it by one of thousands of acronyms—ESDI, CFSP, or whatever. However, the question is: what is the function of that body? What is it intended to do and what does it actually do? Does it have the properties and the resources to enable whatever has been created to perform effectively in the interests of whatever defence capacity is being provided?
	I hold a simple view. I believe in alliances and in co-operation, but in no circumstances will I subscribe to those points of the compass that take us into the single, autonomous capacity described in various statements such as the one made at Feira, which annoyed the Turks beyond endurance. I attended a meeting held under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office at the Institute for Strategic Studies with a Turkish general, the ambassador and others. There was a heated exchange of views. I was very much on the side of the Turks, because—bluntly—they had been cheated. There is no time to go into every detail, but the bottom line is that the Turks felt cheated and they were extremely angry—with justification, in my judgment.
	Subsequent meetings took place, including at Cologne, followed by the Nice arrangements. The important point is that under those arrangements, we are talking about a single autonomous structure, which dovetails with the single structure prescribed by the treaties and from which there is no escape. I look at the Minister for Europe with great interest and concern at this point because there is no way in which he can escape the unequivocal wording of the treaties. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was able to visit the Pentagon before the Secretary of State for Defence did so. That is why he was able to see Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney before the Foreign Secretary. I am open to correction if I am wrong, but that is my understanding.
	The bottom line is that hosts of indicators have been given by the most distinguished US generals, advisers and senior members of the Administration. My hon. Friend had opportunities to give evidence to the Senate and to Congress on these questions. There were some attempts to retrieve the situation, prompted understandably but regrettably by the Labour Government. However, if one weighs up all the comments that have been made, one realises that my hon. Friend established an international reputation in this field, and that was recognised by the United States Administration.

Nick Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that leading US military figures will welcome his attempt to involve them in the Conservative leadership campaign?

William Cash: I have no idea. The matter is one of historical record. Indeed it is already on the record, so I am saying nothing that has not been said already.
	The significance of all this is very simple: through Feira, St. Malo and Cologne we are moving towards not merely a rapid reaction force or enhanced Petersberg tasks, but a European army. I believe that it was Romano Prodi who said—I am paraphrasing—"You can call it Mary or Marianne or whatever you like", but his emphasis was that it would be a European army. That is why he is asking for all those billions of pounds from the European Union, to fill the gap in order to fulfil the functions that will be provided.
	There are honest Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches, and they know the truth. Some of them are prepared to say that there should be a European army because they genuinely believe that. I wait with interest, as the debate proceeds, to hear what they have to say. However, it is impossible to provide the defence or military capacity that is needed without providing the money to go with it. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is rubbish to say that the Americans are at fault, when the bottom line is that it was the Americans who provided the mechanics, operational lift and the capacity to bring to an end the tragic warfare that ensued for a range of reasons that we do not have the time nor the opportunity to go into tonight—

Mark Hendrick: indicated dissent

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I wish that I could remember the name of his constituency.

Mark Hendrick: Preston.

William Cash: I was brought up at school only 15 miles from Preston, so perhaps I should remember that from now on. [Interruption.] Well, the school produced seven VCs, so we did not do too badly. The hon. Gentleman attacked the United States. He mentioned intransigence, and he was extremely critical of the US. He referred in derogatory terms to its concern about body bags.

Mark Hendrick: I will not be as aggressive in my response to the hon. Gentleman's speech as he was to mine, but although the Americans did eventually broker an agreement at Dayton, they did so only after very many months of violence, attacks on civilians and massacres throughout Bosnia, and with hundreds of thousands of people dead from ethnic cleansing. I would have liked to see the Europeans broker a deal in Europe, but the common foreign and security policy had only just been drafted and the means and capability did not exist. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have those means and capability, because that is what Nice is all about?

William Cash: No, I am afraid that I really do not, because the problems of the Balkans have an immensely long history and will not be resolved by trying to stitch up arrangements for the sake of what has been described as a moment of glory. I believe that it was Mr. Poos who, during the Bosnian or Kosovo crisis, said, "This will be the moment of glory for the European Union", or words to that effect. It was a moment of disaster, because the EU does not have the capacity to deal with such a crisis. There are too many national interests at work to be able to create the necessary so-called identity or co-ordination. The hon. Gentleman, in his ideological mind, does not seem to understand that. It is not a workable proposition.
	If I may, I shall glance at Edward Gibbon for a moment. In 1787, in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", he wrote about the Balkans in the fourth century AD in a manner that was no different from the commentaries that we would see today. It is a very difficult problem, and it will not be resolved on the back of ideological or wishful thinking. It is a practical problem, which even at this stage has not been resolved properly, and may yet not be resolved. Therefore, I am afraid that I really cannot give any credibility to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman and I served together on the European Scrutiny Committee and, with the greatest respect to him, surely what is rubbish is scuppering the opportunity to strengthen European defence co-operation, thereby compromising this country's national defence interests on the specious argument that, by strengthening European defence co-operation, we are building some kind of European army. All we are doing is trying to get other European nations to contribute more to actions that are in our national defence interests.

William Cash: First, those contributions are not forthcoming on the scale required and, secondly, those nations simply cannot catch up with the technology, the rocketry, the capacity for heavy-lift aircraft or any of the fundamentals required in modern warfare. Furthermore, they will not catch up for perhaps 15 or 20 years, or more.
	Surveillance is also important. Again, I raised that issue with the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary. I asked them about the exchange of confidential defence information between the United States and the United Kingdom. Let us remember that during our involvement in the early part of the Balkan crisis, it was clearly understood that the French had disclosed secrets. The United States is simply not prepared to provide information to the EU that will then be leaked. That is incredibly important—it is not just a semantic argument; it is about the reality of warfare. We cannot have the sort of defence system that is being devised when any of the parties is liable to divulge information, as that completely undermines the trust and confidence of the main ally, which provides all the operational equipment, personnel and the surveillance system itself.

Peter Hain: If there is a crisis in the Balkans, for example, and the US is not willing to provide assistance and NATO is not willing to intervene, do we just turn our backs? Is there not a role for a European capability? Is it not the case that a European security and defence policy provides exactly that capability? What would the hon. Gentleman do?

William Cash: I have raised that very point with the Prime Minister, and the words "where NATO as a whole is not engaged" are the very ones that I used. The Minister will recognise those words, but their use presupposes the involvement of the United States in the reference to NATO, so it is not a credible policy to turn that on its back by asking what we shall do in the EU. The bottom line is that without the involvement of either the US per se—or through article 5, the US and NATO—the EU is capable of producing no such defence capacity. By the way, it is also well understood that, time and again, the British forces are regarded as the linchpin to enable the delivery of a European capacity. So we are in deep territory.
	I know that the Minister is extremely intelligent and well versed in such matters—at least, he soon will be. [Laughter.] Therefore, I have great confidence that he will extend his capacity, as Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to a real understanding of the role that he must adopt in relation to the treaty and the defence capacity. We need to get the balance right. The truth is that, under the treaty and under the representative role of the new Secretary-General, Javier Solana, who—I say this with respect, although I wrote an extremely tough article about him in The Times when he was appointed because it struck me as a little odd that the Secretary- General of NATO had campaigned against NATO—
	It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, resumed the Chair.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Caplin.]
	Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2001–02

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (4) (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.)
	Resolved,
	That, further resources not exceeding £1,250,531,000 be authorised for use for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, and that a further sum, not exceeding £2,853,190,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2002, as set out in HC 46.
	Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and Mr. Paul Boateng do prepare and bring it in.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Mr. Paul Boateng accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources and the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending on 31st March 2002 and to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 7].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Sports Ground and Sporting Events

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Football (Disorder) (Duration of Powers) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.—[Mr. Caplin.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Hon. Members: Object.

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM CTTEE

Motion made,
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Sentencing

Andrew Miller: In my capacity as national patron of the charity RoadPeace, which looks after the families of the victims who die on our roads, it is an honour to present this petition.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of supporters of RoadPeace,
	Declares that court sentences for offences which result in road death and injury do not take into account the fact that such offences involve the killing or hurting of fellow human beings.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to bring forward legislative proposals which will ensure that road deaths caused through negligence or law breaking are prosecuted as homicides; that serious injuries so caused are prosecuted with appropriate severity; that all such offences should be prosecuted before a judge and jury; and that sentences for such offences should properly reflect the level of culpability involved.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

White Waltham Airfield

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]

Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity not only to complete the trilogy of Berkshire MPs who have spoken in Adjournment debates this week but to bring to the attention of the House a matter that is of considerable concern to my local residents. I believe that it is also of concern to residents in other parts of the country. The issue in question is the need to control noise from light aircraft.
	White Waltham airfield in my constituency is one of the oldest and best-known airfields in the country. It is one of the few remaining grass airfields and is reputed to be the largest such airfield in Europe. It started in 1928 when the de Havilland family bought the land and set up the de Havilland flying school. In 1939 the airfield was taken over by the Ministry of Defence and became the headquarters of the Air Transport Auxiliary—the renowned ATA.
	I am proud to count among my constituents several former members of the ATA—redoubtable ladies whose expertise and courage in transporting aircraft across the country during the war deserves our recognition. To digress slightly, among their number is one lady who went on to learn to fly a helicopter when she was in her seventies. The maidens of Maidenhead are indeed a force to be reckoned with.
	The airfield was retained under Royal Air Force control until 1982. It is now controlled and operated by West London Aero Club and up to 150 aircraft of different types are based there, including Tiger Moths and other pre-war aircraft. It operates as a traditional flying club, but anyone who lives near such an airfield will know that, pleasant though the open space is, such airfields bring problems for local residents—notably, noise.
	Noise from White Waltham airfield has been a recurring theme during my time as Member of Parliament for Maidenhead. Many residents knew about the problem, in that the airfield was operational and they were aware of the flying activity when they moved into the area. However, the problems become greater if noise levels increase.
	Let me quote some comments that I have been sent by local residents. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson of Lambourne drive, Cox Green, say:
	"we did enjoy seven years with almost no overflying from their planes, but since early last summer, we have had numerous planes flying over/adjacent to our bungalow daily. In fact, sometimes there is less than a minute between planes, and when we devoted one afternoon to actually noting times, it was either one or two minutes between each plane for the greater part of that afternoon."
	Mr. Isherwood, also of Cox Green, says:
	"The noise from light aircraft circling overhead from White Waltham Airfield at weekends is intolerable. They have little or no engine silencing and apparently there is no legislation requiring it. If my car was that noisy I would quite rightly be pulled over by the police in minutes."
	Mr. and Mrs. Brown, also of Lambourne drive, Cox Green, write:
	"to be honest, unless Central Government introduce legislation to control this problem, or give councils the authority, nothing is going to happen. We cannot understand in this modern world, that no one is controlling local airfields in terms of noise, air pollution and circuit flying."
	It is the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Brown that I want to draw to the House's attention.
	Residents are frustrated: not only do they suffer the problem of noise, but when they appeal to authorities to do something it appears that nothing can be done because nobody has the power to enforce any controls over the nuisance from which they suffer. Residents expect their local council to be able to do something, but find that it is powerless to do anything.
	I should say at this point that, although residents are worried about the noise, they want the airfield to stay. Having such a wonderful open space on the outskirts of Maidenhead is welcome and, as I said, many of them moved into the area knowing that the airfield was there. Residents need a balance to be struck between their needs and the needs of the airfield and its users.
	West London Aero Club has taken some steps itself. It has circuits for flying, details of which are posted to its pilots and made known to visiting pilots. The club offers a free instructor to work with pilots who are unsure of the procedures operated by the club. Other measures include a voluntary decision not to engage in night flights or helicopter pilot training, both of which previously caused my constituents concern in terms of noise nuisance. The club has also been active on the issue of silencers. As I understand it, a silencer cannot be fitted to an aircraft in the United Kingdom unless it is approved by the Civil Aviation Authority, even if it is approved by the relevant authorities in the country of origin. Over the years, that has been used by many fliers as a smokescreen for not doing something about the problem. This year, however, West London Aero Club paid the CAA to approve silencers for its training aircraft, and has now fitted them to those in use at White Waltham. Silencers could be fitted to similar training aircraft elsewhere; the club is now considering using them for multi-bladed propellers.
	The club has taken action, but problems still remain for local residents. There have been agreements in the past; when I first took my seat, a voluntary flying agreement between the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and West London Aero Club covered night flights and matters such as the use of helicopters. That agreement was reached following the council's decision to withdraw two enforcement orders that had been imposed in 1996, and it ran until November 2000. It then lapsed and has not been renewed. It was voluntary and it is for West London Aero Club to negotiate a further agreement. However, such an agreement has no statutory enforcement beyond the council going to court for an injunction. As that is at the court's discretion, there is no guarantee that enforcement action can be taken if the controls in the voluntary agreement have not been met by people using the club.
	At White Waltham, the issue of noise control has often been taken alongside planning matters and applications. Following the withdrawal of the voluntary agreement, which, as I said, lapsed last November, the council received a planning application for development on part of the site that also included a proposal for a further voluntary flying control agreement. The council's legal advice was that, as the proposed agreement was part of the planning application, it was not suitable for inclusion in the planning decision. The application for development has now been refused, which perhaps has affected the opportunities for voluntary agreement.
	The council is right in its fundamental point that it should be possible to separate the control of noise and flying at such an airfield from planning decisions. When planning applications are made, councils should not have to rely on planning conditions as a means of offering control on flying to local residents; it should be possible to have powers to offer that control separately.
	There is one further point about whether there should be statutory or voluntary control at White Waltham. As the Minister will be aware, there are statutory consultative arrangements for designated airfields under section 5 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. However, White Waltham is not a designated airfield, so it is not possible to have a statutory consultative procedure, even though the council established a voluntary consultative committee. Questions about the chairmanship of the committee and whether certain local councillors took residents' views into consideration properly were recently followed by discussions about the constitution of the committee and the fact that it is only voluntary; again, it has no statutory power.
	There is no statutory power, either for consultative arrangements or for noise and flying controls, except that on which the council relied in its previous agreement—section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	The issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is whether the Government intend to follow their proposal last year to introduce legislation to allow local councils to control flights of light aircraft at such airfields. As the Minister might imagine, I have been in correspondence about the issue with a number of Ministers over the years, and depending on what he says tonight I dare say that I will be in correspondence with him in future.
	I refer to a letter that I received on 18 January this year from the then Under-Secretary of State at the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who has returned to a more traditional and recognisable role for him and freedom on the Government Back Benches. He referred to the consultation paper that the Government issued last July, following their White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". He wrote:
	"We are proposing to provide aerodromes with clearer powers to regulate flying behaviour. The preference will still be for local solutions and, where existing arrangements are working satisfactorily, the expectation will be that such arrangements will carry on much as before. However, where the Secretary of State believes that these have been ineffective, he would, under our proposals, be given a new power to designate an aerodrome requiring it to agree a noise amelioration scheme with an appropriate local authority. That authority would then have powers of enforcement. Independent arbitration is proposed as one way of resolving any disputes that may arise."
	That intention to legislate was more recently reiterated by the Government when the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead asked the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when legislation might be introduced. The reply stated that there had been almost 600 responses to the consultation paper on control of noise from civil aircraft:
	"These reflected a wide range of views from a broad cross-section of interested groups, organisations and individual respondents. They are currently being carefully considered. Our intention is to announce our conclusions and bring legislation forward in due course."
	The reply continued:
	"I cannot give a timescale when a legislative slot will be found. . . However, I can assure you that the Government's commitment to introduce legislation remains."
	It is on that issue that I press the Minister tonight. My constituents feel strongly that powers should be available to enforce controls on noise from light aircraft using airfields such as White Waltham. As I said, no one intends to stop activity from White Waltham or to stop the airfield existing. It has a long and proud history, and we wish White Waltham airfield to stay and to provide opportunities for flying for those who enjoy that leisure activity or who use it for business purposes, as do some who use the club.
	However, residents want the comfort of knowing that when the nuisance becomes too great, someone can take action. At present, that does not seem possible. Residents expect their local council to be able to take such action. The royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead wants to be able to take action, but it cannot do so on its own. The matter is in the hands of the Government. They have promised legislation. They say that they recognise the problem and that they will act to resolve it.
	I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to give comfort to my constituents and let them know that they can enjoy the benefit of the open space, but that the noise nuisance can be controlled so that they do not constantly have to suffer from a nuisance that they believe their local council should be able to control.

John Spellar: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, and on the fluent and comprehensive way in which she presented her case, largely without notes, which is unusual in late-night Adjournment debates. She is probably fleeing from the attentions of the canvassers for the various candidates, and the Chamber may be one of the few safe places in the Palace of Westminster.
	Aircraft noise is, as the hon. Lady rightly said, a subject of great concern to airport neighbours. The Government take aviation noise seriously and support measures to limit its disturbance of communities around aerodromes. Although I shall respond as far as I properly can to the points made about White Waltham specifically, much of what I say will be equally applicable to many licensed and unlicensed aerodromes around the country.
	Let me make clear the role of my Department in respect of aircraft noise policy at aerodromes. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are designated under section 80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for the purposes of section 78 of that Act, for noise regulation. Elsewhere, circumstances vary greatly between larger airports and the many small local airfields. The policy of successive Governments has been that aircraft noise is a local issue that is best resolved locally. We recognise the legitimate right of general aviation pilots to fly, but as the hon. Lady said, that right should always be balanced with the interests of the communities that are disturbed by aerodrome activities.
	General aviation is an activity that is not only legitimate, but important. It would be wrong to conceive of it as a matter purely of weekend leisure flying, although that has its place. The Government are also mindful of the contribution of general aviation to the training of pilots, many of whom move on to commercial airline service, and to emergency operations, business and local economies.
	Aerodrome and aircraft operators are expected to achieve as far as practically possible the minimum disturbance to the community. Often, with a measure of good will on both sides, matters can be improved by discussion between the aerodrome management and local interests. For example, such improvements could be made by designing circuit patterns with noise avoidance features when it is safe to do so and when that will not produce worse nuisance elsewhere. Improvements could also be achieved by controlling and notifying the times of relatively noisy operations.
	As the hon. Lady said, White Waltham is a long-established airfield with a venerable history. From the early days of the de Havilland flying school in the 1930s, through its wartime and subsequent years as the headquarters of the Air Transport Auxiliary, and afterwards as a base for Fairey Aviation and the West London Aero Club among others, it is certainly well rooted in the community.
	The aerodrome's proximity to Heathrow and its location below the congested airspace of the south-east mean that there must be rather tight constraints on its scope for modifying its procedures. However, it clearly indicates noise avoidance areas in its posted circuit procedures and pilots should be well aware of the need for considerate flying that avoids, for example, the residential areas of south-west Maidenhead, Knowl Hill, White Waltham village and other locations.
	I understand that the airfield management has recently had silencers approved by the Civil Aviation Authority, whose involvement the hon. Lady mentioned, for the aerodrome's fleet of training aircraft, and that they have now been fitted. The possibility of fitting quieter four-bladed, rather than two-bladed, propellers is also being investigated with the CAA. I am told that the aerodrome has voluntarily restricted helicopter training activity, as the hon. Lady pointed out.
	I want to say a little about international regulation of noise at source. Each light aircraft type coming newly into service must be certificated to show compliance with noise limitation standards recommended and published by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The effectiveness of the standards is kept under review and they are updated as much as is technically feasible and economically justifiable. The Government's policy is to regulate to put those recommendations into practice. That policy recognises that manufacturing and operating aircraft is nowadays a global business that needs global solutions wherever practicable.
	The noise problems presented by light aircraft are rather different in character from those produced by large commercial aircraft. Often it is repetitive activities such as circuit flying or compass testing that cause the greatest annoyance. It is important that aerodromes should try to ensure that their circuits and procedures are designed—this must happen within the constraints of safety, of course—to minimise inconvenience to people on the ground. They should specify noise avoidance areas where appropriate and ensure that pilots respect the rules.
	Following a UK initiative, the ICAO published guidance for pilots and aerodrome operators on "Considerate Flying", which contained training and operating measures to minimise noise nuisance for local residents. The CAA has disseminated that guidance to aerodromes here and the British Helicopter Advisory Board has issued guidance on the subject to helicopter pilots.
	As the hon. Lady said, it is important that aerodromes consult local amenity groups, local authorities and others about decisions that are likely to affect the noise climate. They should listen carefully to their views, and act on them whenever possible. The best forum for that is often a consultative committee. Sensitive and responsive handling of concerns is in everyone's interest, including that of the aerodromes. Many aerodrome managers already order such matters well, but there is sometimes room for improvement.
	Although noise control measures at White Waltham and other aerodromes are the responsibility of the aerodrome management, our policy is to encourage consultation as a means of reconciling local difficulties that arise from aerodrome operations.
	Approximately 50 aerodromes nationally have been designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That requires the aerodrome management to provide adequate facilities for consultation for specified categories of users, local authorities and local representative organisations on any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome that affects their interests.
	White Waltham has not been designated under section 35. However, I understand that the management has voluntarily established a consultative committee, which is structured along similar lines to the committees at many section 35 aerodromes.
	All pilots have to comply with the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996, which relate to height limits for aircraft. They require that an aircraft must not fly within 500 ft of
	"any person, vessel, vehicle or structure",
	except when landing or taking off, nor below 1,500 ft over a congested area, unless written permission has been obtained from the CAA. They also prohibit aerobatics, which can be a source of significant annoyance, especially over highly populated areas.
	No legal action can be taken against pilots for noise disturbance, provided that they observe the rules of the air and fly in accordance with normal aviation practice. I stress that the regulations primarily cover safety, but the height restrictions give some collateral noise benefit.
	It is important to stress that the establishment and use of aerodromes are subject to normal planning controls. Many aerodromes, including White Waltham, predate current planning legislation. Even so, many have had to seek planning permission for subsequent expansions and alterations over the years. The planning authority may grant permission, subject to the relevant conditions, which might include noise-related requirements, that it considers appropriate. Conditions may, for instance, stipulate the number of flights permitted by day and limit the use of the site at night. The local planning authority has powers to take enforcement action if the terms of the planning permission are breached.
	If a local authority's purpose cannot be achieved through a planning condition, it may seek to enter into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrict or regulate the development or use of the land. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) points out, that clause is well known to Members of Parliament.
	Local authorities can also require use of land to be discontinued by making a discontinuance order under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Such an order would have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and may involve the local planning authority paying compensation for the loss of existing use rights.
	I understand that White Waltham sought planning permission for office and hangar developments, and in connection with the application proposed additional controls on flying activities. As the hon. Lady said, the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead recently refused planning consent. I am sure that she understands that it would not be appropriate for me to enter into a debate about the details of the case. I am outlining the objective circumstances that relate to it.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned the use of silencers on light aircraft. Certification is carried out independently of the aircraft manufacturer, either by the CAA or its designates, and it is agreed internationally. It deals with noise on flyover, sidelines, the take-off phase and final approach. Some countries, such as Germany, have adopted national noise standards for light aircraft that are more stringent in some respects than the ICAO recommendations. However, it is our policy to use ICAO standards, and to work through that body to achieve more stringent global noise standards. National variations merely undermine the benefits of global standards.
	Additionally, the safety regulation group of the CAA has concerns about safety when certain types of silencers are fitted to existing light aircraft. We would not want to take any risks on safety to achieve marginally lower noise levels. To comply with current requirements, some light aircraft may need to be modified by fitting silencers or mufflers. Such modifications require approval by the CAA to ensure that the modified aircraft continues to meet all the applicable safety requirements. The hon. Lady mentioned proposed new legislation in this regard.
	The long-standing policy of maintaining a balance between the rights of general aviation pilots to fly and the interests of the communities that are disturbed by aircraft noise has generally proved successful. Nevertheless, the Government accept that aircraft noise can be disturbing and that sometimes more should be done.
	Last autumn, we completed a public consultation entitled "The control of noise from civil aircraft". We think of some stunningly original titles. In this, we proposed providing aerodromes with clearer powers to regulate flying behaviour. The preference is still for local solutions and, where existing arrangements are working satisfactorily, the expectation will be that such arrangements will carry on much as before. However, if the Secretary of State believed that they had been ineffective, he would, under our proposals, be given a new power to require an aerodrome to agree a noise amelioration scheme with an appropriate local authority. That authority would then have powers of enforcement. Independent arbitration is proposed as one way of resolving any disputes that may arise. There were many detailed responses to the consultation, reflecting, as one would imagine, a broad range of views. They are being evaluated and considered, and our conclusions will be announced in due course.
	The legislative proposals were intended not to supplant existing planning powers, but to strengthen the hand of aerodromes in controlling their existing operations, and to allow intervention when necessary if voluntary arrangements have failed. We would certainly not expect a local authority to regard itself, in anticipation of such legislation, as inhibited from exercising its current powers—for example, to pursue planning obligations or conditions in respect of noise either from, or affecting, new development.
	I hope that that has been helpful to the hon. Lady in the pursuit of her cause on behalf of her constituents. She suggested that she might wish to write to me on further points, and I await that with interest and anticipation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	 — 
	Education

That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 195.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 482, Noes 10.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 483, Noes 10.

Question accordingly agreed to.